Wikisource:Copyright discussions

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

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

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

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

Quick reference to copyright term



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)

Virginia Woolf Incorrect Copyright Info[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Please check each work, and if unacceptable here, Canadian Wikilivres may take some works.--Jusjih (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
After going through much of this month's proofread, I decided to hop on over to Virginia Woolf's author page. I noticed that many of the books are marked "Under US copyright until X" by the {{copyright until}} template. However, this isn't correct for the few I checked. While true that works made before 1923 are in the public domain in the US, this does not mean that works after 1923 are not. All of her works published before 1964 are now in the public domain. I searched the US Copyright Office to check some, such as Mrs. Dalloway and A Room of One's Own. There are recent versions under copyright, but the originals were not renewed and do not fall under the post-1964 automatic renewal umbrella. The recent versions are under copyright because of new material (forewords, etc.) and edits to the original material, but the original text does not actually fall under the banner of copyright.

"The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. Protection does not extend to any preexisting material, that is, previously published or previously registered works or works in the public domain or owned by a third party.

As a result, it is not possible to extend the length of protection for a copyrighted work by creating a derivative work. A work that has fallen into the public domain, that is, a work that is no longer protected by copyright, is also an underlying “work” from which derivative authorship may be added, but the copyright in the derivative work will not extend to the public domain material, and the use of the public domain material in a derivative work will not prevent anyone else from using the same public domain work for another derivative work."

United States Copyright Office (October 2013). "Copyright in Derivative Works and Compilations". 

Also see the Commons page which has a good summary of why the original text is now public domain.

Of note, the 70 year after death rule would apply for Britain, which means the copyright on the original works expired in 2011. I do not know about renewals on these works for Britain, but I'm referring to US copyright overall in this post. It seems that we're blocking ourselves from working on some great texts. As it stands, I haven't changed any of the page as I wanted to point this out first. If I have made a mistake, please feel free to point it out. The Haz talk 18:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I've looked through them and all the renewals seem to be valid. I can't tell if they were initially registered within the required thirty days but the years match. Without further information, I would say they are all under copyright, although the specific licence is not correct (they are under copyright due to renewal, not the 1923 cut-off). I might be wrong. I've added the renewal numbers for the moment if anyone wants to double check. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I just looked at the renewal you gave for Mrs. Dalloway. It was in 1953 which means it would have been valid for 47 years (until 2000). I'll add that the new, longer copyright term (95y total) does not apply as it was published before 1964, so the term still remains 75y if the renewal was filed in the 28th year which it was. Circular 15 The Haz talk 19:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
URAA renewal complicates matters, and as they were UK published works, unless we can demonstrate that they are published within 30 days in the US, then they will remain foreign works, and pretty much out of bounds until 95 years post-publication`. How existing renewals and and URAA are going to interplay is just another nightmare, and just going to be too hard for base amateurs like us to resolve. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
<<edit conflict>> Virginia Woolf was an English writer. Thanks to w:URAA, all of her post-1922 books are copyrighted in the United States for 95 years from publication regardless of whether they were renewed or not, since they were copyrighted in the UK in 1996.
You also seem to ask whether the books were renewed in the UK or not. The UK abolished renewals quite a long time ago (in the w:Copyright Act 1842 I think), and renewals have not been needed in the UK since then. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
According to the copyright office, URAA doesn't apply here because they were already registered in the United States. If they had missed the original renewal, the URAA wouldn't have allowed them to renew because it was already registered under US copyright law. My original issue was that they had 75 year terms (even if URAA), not 95. However, while those recent publications discussed the 75 year total term for anything before 1964, the next part states that all works published after 1922 and renewed before 1978 automatically had the renewal extended 20 years to be 95 years total. This summary of a part of the 1998 act has cleared it up for me:

Copyrights already in their second term on January 1, 1978: The duration of the copyright term has automatically been prolonged to last for a total of 95 years. No further renewal registration is necessary.

Thanks for the info, everyone! The Haz talk 00:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Um, but URAA does restore the copyright to non-US works which weren't renewed, even if they were registered for copyright in the US. This does at least happen if the US registration was more than 30 days after publication in the UK. I'm not sure what happens if the US registration predates that, though, as some parts of US law consider registration to count as "publication". --Stefan2 (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
But for English-language books, the manufacturing clause meant that they had to be published in the US with 30 days to gain copyright (a form of protectionist tariff). So either those books were first published (within 30 days) in the US, or the original registrations were improper.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Another clarification (not that you were really 'wrong' @Prosfilaes:... the manufacturing clause wasn't so much something that needed to to complied with to 'gain' protection, at least later on, in that an English language work published in a 'treaty-partner' nation would have it's copyright recognized in the United States, but more a matter of 'losing' US copyright protection if you then published copies in the US that were not manufactured domestically. It was not legal to republish a work in the US in disregard of the foreign copyright if the source nation was a treaty partner... the foreign work did indeed have a form of US copyright protection, not specifically under the 1891 law (which was the source of the manufacturing clause) but through later 'bilateral agreements' or treaties such as the Buenos Aires Convention. Revent (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify here, the specific text of 17 USC 104a (h)(6)(C) defines a 'restored work'...
(C) is in the public domain in the United States due to—...
(i) noncompliance with formalities imposed at any time by United States copyright law, including failure of renewal... (emphasis added)
A 'non-US' work that was at some point registered in the US, but not renewed, can indeed have it's copyright restored under the URAA. In order for the work to lose protection due to non-renewal, it needs to be established that the foreign-source work was 'simultaneously published' in the United States (or, technically, a 'treaty party' in the original publication was in a non-treaty-party country). Later US 'publication', either through actual publication or registration does not change the source nation of the work. Revent (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems like each work needs to be individually listed and reviewed for copyright status. Jeepday (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Economic Competition” et al.[edit]

Is there any justification for this law except Edict-gov? If not I'm inclined to issue an informal writ of mandamus, a cease and desist order or an estoppel to prevent further work on placing this law on Wikisource. ResScholar (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you expand on why you think we should not be hosting it? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
If the Edict-gov license is the only license applicable, and that license is being cast into doubt by the discussions above, I think it would be better to stop progress on the work until a decision on the license's use has solidified. ResScholar (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
While I agree about the "Edict-gov" license pitfall completely here, one of the points behind nullifying it was to investigate where the nation-in-question's copyright law actually stands on any given type of government work, suspected or otherwise, and build from there. If its PD/released by the attributed government by law there, than its OK to host here.

So if one can believe what is found locally under Article 10, the "lack of applicable license" is more a matter of not having the valid & proper licesnse banner already in place more so than being disqualified by [inter]national copyright law(s) or worse, falling under the last resort of scoundrels - the Edict of Gov't "standard".

Of course, somebody fluent should double check the copyright law we're hosting to verify it is indeed valid as well as in force today. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear all, here is weblink;jsessionid=C1C7AB1FABB574BD5805320F15BCEACC?id=94745&schema=main from which I downloaded contents. "Antimonopoly Committee" is the part of government of Ukraine. So, it is PD, I thought. HappyMidnight (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
You still need to "tag" any work added to en.WS reflecting that info relating to copyright status - the matching banner did not exist for Ukraine is all.
I started one based on Commons' version - see {{PD-UA-exempt}}. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your work and advice. HappyMidnight (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Law of the People's Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Contractual Joint Ventures[edit]

Template found. ResScholar (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Act 1996[edit]

I tagged a template right now. HappyMidnight (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Turkish civil Code[edit]


Protection of Competition in Albania[edit]

Law On Protection Of Competition in the Republic of Macedonia[edit]

Block Exemption Communiqué on Vertical Agreements, Amended by the Competition Board Communiqués No. 2003/3 and 2007/2 of Turkey[edit]

None of the preceding works you added have license templates and are also subject to removal. ResScholar (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I am asking the contributor of the preceding five laws from non-English speaking countries about sources and licenses of the translations. If still no answer, delete them as translation copyvios.--Jusjih (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

War and Peace[edit]

This Louise and Aylmer Maude translation of the famed Leo Tolstoy work may have been copyright-free in the United States for a few years. If its first publication date was in 1928 or 1929 by Oxford University Press, and it wasn't published simultaneously in the United States, it wouldn't have been registered in the U.S. either. But once the URAA took effect in the U.S. (in Dec. 1994), its copyright would have been restored, regardless of whether it was registered. Because the copyright of this work would have been in force in 1996 in Great Britain (the translators died some time after 70 years prior to 1996).

And even if I'm wrong about it not being registered, it wasn't renewed. There is a renewal on some Tolstoy works by those translators, but the renewal specifically points to extraneous material by other authors.

Let's say I'm wrong about the 1928 or 1929 date. The Wikisource author page and the War and Peace work title page says it was translated 1922-23. That would still just allow us to present that portion of the work published before 1923 (at least until 2018).

The earliest occurrence I can find of this translation is in the Oxford University Press translation of The Works of Tolstoy.

Fortunately this appears to be a Gutenberg cut and paste job, and little effort of our contributors will be blighted by removing this translation. ResScholar (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This Google Book says it was published in 1922. But I do see the "1922-23" references out there as well, with three volumes mentioned, but also that the Maudes revised their work in reprintings -- so it may be there is a 1922 and a 1923 version. Or, probably more likely, books 1 and 2 were from 1922, and the last one was from 1923. The URAA did not take effect until Jan 1, 1996 (the same day the UK restored to 70pma; it had previously been PD in the UK as well). The question then is if it was published in the U.S. simultaneously, at least the third volume in 1923. Oxford did have New York offices, but most references seem to just say London. This one mentions both New York and London, though. Hrm. Carl Lindberg (talk)
If no other comment, I am sending Books 4 to 15 and both Epilogues to Canadian Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Aylmer and Louise Maude died in 1938/9 respectively. This would make their work copyright free in countries where there's a 70+ rule. This is the case in the source country at least (UK). Would this not apply to US too? unsigned comment by Potmop (talk) 2015-12-26T15:20:28.

In the United States, the copyright normally expires 95 years after the work was first published, subject to some exceptions. The main exception is that the copyright to works published before 1923 already expired at the latest 75 years after publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The Times Literary Supplement (Thursday, March 09, 1922; pg. 156; Issue 1051.) has an article by Maude that states that the translation of War and Peace was currently "in press" for the World Classic Series. Then again (Thursday, November 16, 1922; pg. 741; Issue 1087) in the same publication it says "about to be published" and refers to the first volume. So at best, we can have the first of n volumes, and only if it was published in time for Xmas. If not published concurrently (evidence?) and not renewed, then not worth the effort for one volume of a text not supported by a scan. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

School Song of New R. S. J. Public School[edit]

There is no evidence that this is, in fact, in the public domain. It also doesn't appear to be significant enough to be included on Wikisource. --Jakob (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Move from Wikisource:Proposed deletions. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

How can I provide the evidence for its copyright. If by email then how? Email me the steps at Prathamprakash29 (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The easiest way is to provide a link to the song posted at the school site with it’s copyright notice posted online. Next requires contact with someone who is legally entitled to represent the school and/or the author of the song. Which is most likely to work in your case? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 18:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
@Jeepday The principal is having the copyright of the song. The song is not on school website but it is on the school diary as hardcopy.

The principal had sent a the permission to permissions-common. Is it ok, or any other step is required?--Prathamprakash29 (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC) This is the image of school diary with school song ---

File:School Song in School Diary.jpeg
School Song in School Diary

Please add it.

  • Two issues
  • 1 The permissions sent in 2014050810001396 are sent on behalf of the author, not by the author. While a this can be addressed, the second issue is problematic.
  • 2 Per Wikisource:WWI#Works_created_after_1922: it does not meet inclusion. As it is only published in a school publication it fails Original contributions and as it is only one part of that school publication it fails Excerpts.
  • Jakec had challenged it as not significant or notable, which is not an inclusion criteria at Wikisource, and pointed out the copyright issue. I should have reviewed more before bringing it here. Currently it seems that the copyright issue can be (but has not yet been) addressed. But the work will still fail at least two of the precedent exclusions at WS:WWI. Jeepday (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, Jeepday just tell me what do i need to do, to make the lyrics available on wikisource.--Prathamprakash29 (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Currently it does not look like there is anything you can do. In an effort to not become a w:Vanity press and remain a library, the community has set some standards on what works can be hosted here. This work, does not meet the inclusion criteria. Jakec and Ankry were essentially correct when they questioned the appropriateness of hosting this work on Wikisource. The two "Official" problems I mention above are the technically correct challenges to the work, other then the copyright issue. If you look hard enough you may think you can find a way around these challenges but speaking from experience in working with the community for years, this work is not likely to be hosted on any wikimediafoundation site in your lifetime. Jeepday (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Aside on Excerpts[edit]

Jeepday, you cited "Excerpts", but is a song really an excerpt, or more of a self-contained unit like in an anthology? What brought this to mind was an early contribution called Elemoont. It was a story serialized in a Russian newspaper and was accepted here. I found the "Excerpts" description at Wikisource:WWI enlightening as to good management of Wikisource resources in its opposition to fragmentation of an author's work, but I also see how that may be taken too far when it excludes bonafide publication of works of those very authors we are trying to protect that might not appear in any other way. For example in a newspaper, a story serialized there may be thought to have more enduring significance than the news articles that surround it, articles which, in the long run, may only carry historical significance rather than a literary one.
Jeepday, since, as you mention, it was only published in a school diary, I don't mean to argue a moot point, but to open up possibilities of the song being published elsewhere as a condition of it being accepted here. For example, why wouldn't a magazine put out by a school district that you see published in some areas be suitable? ResScholar (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
ResScholar you are correct; but in those cases the works have received multiple publications. The community has tended to embrace "Excerpts" of popular works that have recieved multiple publications when a copy of the work as a stand alone is not available, but I think they is usually at least an attempt to set up the entire work as an index, even if only one part of the work is validated at the time it is brought onto Wikisource. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete OTRS is still in 'received' status, for two years? I dont have access any more, so I cant check what happened. But given the nature of the work, the lack of sheet music, etc, I think this discussion should be concluded and there is only one conclusion possible at this stage. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:20, 21 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 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)

Death certificate of Pope John Paul II[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Kept as PD-ineligible, with translation very likely by a Wikipedian cum Wikisourcerer, presumed GFDL as the Wikipedia text was deleted before the switch to CC-BY-SA, just to make things interesting. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 06:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This work was originally brought over as en.WP dumping because it did not belong there. However, it doesn't meet criteria for inclusion here either. It is only published on the web. I don't feel we can treat a html document as it were a documentary source. It also is translation from Italian with an unknown translator (which I am only mentioning in case consensus is "Keep" we will probably need to re-translate as Wikisource translation to be certain of translation copyright issues.) Also the copyright of the original Italian is questionable, but I haven't looked into Vactican copyrights at all (this may not be an issue with research).--BirgitteSB 01:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you expand on why this work does not meet Wikisource:WWI#Documentary_sources? Jeepday (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    • It is based on a website not the actual document. All that I can find the Vatican ever released was an html file. BirgitteSB 12:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
      • My understanding is that or Holy see is the Vatican equivalent of anything published is essentially published on either site is essentially published by the government. I don’t think we have a requirement dictating addressing publishing media paper or electronic only. Still not seeing what your argument is. Jeepday (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Perhaps so, but the work we currently have up does not meet the following: "The source of these works must be noted in order to allow others to verify that the copy displayed at Wikisource is a faithful reproduction." I don't see such a source given for this work. Thjis might be correctable, but is lacking as the work currently stands. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
          • The work is July 2005 entry to Wikisource, while WS:WWI is a empty until January 2006. There is a long history of grandfathering minor things like source not entered, especially as the source is indicated in this deletion discussion. I doubt that anyone is seriously suggesting going through and deleting all works where a source is not listed…. I am not vested in the work in question at all, just in the deletion process. No valid rationale is being offered for this deletion. If you hate it and don’t want it to be on Wikisource, then say that, and if a couple others agree we can delete it. But so far, everyone is offering out scope arguments without historical usage and if they were applied across the board would have a significant impact on other works on WS. Jeepday (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I thought we had found that the Vatican claims a blanket copyright on all "publications" on their websites (here). This would mean that the original text is copyright, regardless of scope. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Looks like we could not show PD, CC or similar. So we will definitely want to take this to WS:CV. Jeepday (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This is a historical document of a notable person (so in scope) and it is specifically not a work of art. You cannot copyright facts. Where registries around the world have claimed copyright to their BMD certificates it has been due to the artwork and design aspects. On an electronic version this simply does not exist, and the source is the closest that you will get to official. The work should be {{PD-ineligible}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with this assessment. You cannot copyright facts InFairness (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Move from Wikisource:Proposed deletions JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 19:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @InFairness: according to the deleted revisions on English Wikipedia, this translation was done by User:InFairness, who is still active on English Wikipedia and I'll ping them there also.
    It looks like this is the only death certificate on English Wikisource. While the copyright may not be clear, this is certainly a case where it is extremely unlikely that a copyright case could eventuate.
    billinghurst, do you have any good reading material re BMD copyrights. While normally I would agree that Template:PD-GovEdict is irrelevant for BMD, a death certificate provided by the state about its current head of state (as in this case) seems reasonable use of the principle. It tenders to the public that the head has in fact deceased and the position is now vacant or held by a regent of some sort, and sets into motion many state processes that are predefined in laws, etc. However it is a stretch, I admit. If there is clear PD-ineligibility decision in US case law, that would be a good position to work from. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    @John Vandenberg: From my time doing family history the government record offices have been able to put restrictions on the documents with regard to image reproductions for publication as they are all on special paper, eg. HMSO used to own copyright of the accompanying images, and security measures. The information is just information, it is not theirs to restrict, it is usually provided by other than the registry office, and it is not of literary merit. Information is not copyrightable and is be PD-ineligible when it is a single piece. I doubt that there will be case law for this aspect, and the closest that you will get is copyright for databases of information where the intellectual property is the IP of the system with data, not a piece of data. UK's GRO has Reproduction of birth, death and marriage certificates which gives some good information to support such a position. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for drawing my attention, John. Can you give me a link to the revision in question so I can look at it? It's been quite a while! Many thanks, InFairness (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
InFairness, The text here is at , and it came from w:Death_certificate_of_Pope_John_Paul_II (deleted, identical translation) , and all of your English Wikipedia edits were done on 2005-04-05. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, John. It has been so long that I don't specifically remember whether I actually translated or copied, but translations of that nature are certainly within my capabilities. As for the "Notes" section: that really sounds like my writing, and, especially, the kind of thing that I would write and make note of, since my mother had just died in late 2003 from the same basic illness--urosepsis leading to refractory septic shock. I am quite certain that I wrote the "Notes" section, and almost certain I wrote the translation, though I could be wrong. If you can show me how to go to a previous version, I could tell. Or, better: could you tell me if it looks like I wrote the translation? Honestly, it's a simple document, and there are not many ways to translate it, though I feel like this translation is mine.InFairness (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
If that doesn't go through, I'd be happy to do a translation with no copyright restriction.InFairness (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Works of OCSE[edit]

We have a number of works by the OCSE, some paired with UNMIK (UN body), i.e. where OCSE in Kosovo. Looking at the OCSE website they claim the copyright on their works, and where they do any release data/photos it is with a non-derivative licence. That being correct, it would seem that our holding the works may be in violation of copyright.

I am starting this conversation, and as I find further works I will be adding them to the list. Some of these works may be jointly published, and we will need to work out which organisation will hold the copyright. Looking through their publications themselves, they don't mention copyright information, and little really in the way of publication information, so often the publications are of little to no help.

billinghurst sDrewth 04:59, 26 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 ). 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)

The Testament of St. Francis of Assisi[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Replaced with PD text --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
It looks like this is from The Writings of St. Francis of Assisi, translated by Benen Fahy and published in the US in 1964. I found what appears to be a copyright notice here on Google Books snippet view, which would place this in copyright for a while yet. Prosody (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I would definitely agree that the version posted is most likely copyrighted. However there are many translated versions not in copyright. For instance, here
Yes check.svg Done Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I've replaced the text with a public domain translation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


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)

Someone care to create OPL3 and curate[edit]

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

Tolstoy on Pascal[edit]

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

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

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

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

Letter to the Youth in Europe and North America[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Kept as PD-Iran--Jusjih (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The text is copied verbatim from [3] as part of an Iranian propaganda drive by Khamenei supporters.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment On the one hand: Propaganda isn't a problem per se; it's still a valid document and I created Category:Propaganda a while ago for things like this. On the other hand: the text is definitely taken from the stated website and I can't find any copyright release information. I expect the author intended it to be released but this is another case where they haven't made it explicit. On the gripping hand: {{PD-Iran}} should apply; Iranian copyright is not recognised under US law making any Iranian text automatically PD as far as Wikisource is concerned. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The PD-Iran thing is surprising. Wasn't aware of it.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
It isn't used much. I only found out when I noticed Ali Khamenei already has an author page and another work on the project. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems that the text was first distributed on Twitter (see w:To the Youth in Europe and North America). Distribution on Twitter is either not publication at all, publication in the United States (where Twitter is hosted) or publication in all countries where Twitter is hosted. In either case, {{PD-Iran}} is not applicable. You can only use {{PD-Iran}} if it was first published in Iran (and not published outside Iran within 30 days after publication in Iran). You can't use {{PD-Iran}} for unpublished material. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it would count as "distributed" on Twitter, as it is a lot more than 140 characters; although it could have been cut into pieces. The corresponding wikipedia article says "Khamenei released the letter on his official website and promoted by a Twitter account attributed to him". That sounds like it was just a link. If true, the publication would have been on the official website (presumably, but not necessarily, located in Iran). The 30-day re-publication provision would be the main issue. From googling the send sentence, it looks like CNN published on their website the next day (also, the Wikisource page in question was within the 30-day time frame, albeit slightly later on the 15th February). NB: I've amended the template to include this point. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Neither CNN nor Wikisource would count as publications, as they were done without consent of the author. I think that the law would be interpreted as basically making it unpublished for 30 days from first publication in Iran unless a publication in a Berne Convention country intervened.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, I misread the document. In that case, based on this fairly obscure bit of copyright law: Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Would distribution on the Internet count as publication in the first place? Under Swedish law, distribution on the Internet doesn't constitute publication as publication is associated with the distribution of copies, whereas Internet distribution works differently. United States law also bases its definition of publication on distribution of copies. If distribution on the Internet isn't publication, then the document may be unpublished. You can only use {{PD-Iran}} for published material. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think distribution on the Internet necessarily counts differently; certainly any case where someone pays money to download a copy would be publication, I believe, and I think releasing something under a CC license would be an offering of copies to people to a group of people for further distribution. However, I do think that there is a case for much Internet writings to be treated as public performance and not publication. The Copyright Office punts on it[] and leaves it up to the person registering copyright. quotes Kernal Records OY v. Moseley as making the US the country of first publication for anything published on the net, basically obliterating PD-Iran, though that article is quite critical of the case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, so this is either unpublished, or something which was published in every country in which the Internet is accessible. In the event that this is unpublished, then it is copyrighted as the United States provides copyright for unpublished works from any country. In the event that this is published, then it is copyrighted in the United States as it was published in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
When you get down to it, electronic copies are made all the time when accessing works over the Internet. I'm pretty sure it counts as published. As for the "simultaneous publication" thing... that is harder and I don't think the law (or the Berne Convention) really deals with it. I think it was even discussed at a Berne working group with no real resolution, and I think I've seen reference to a couple U.S. court cases, one which decided such works were published simultaneously in all countries in the world (thus qualifying as a U.S. work and requiring the authors to follow the rules of U.S. authors to file a copyright lawsuit), and the other case went the other way. Note that actual distribution is not required for U.S. publication; the simple offer to distribute qualifies. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
As I said, you can put a work on the net and file a copyright registration for it as an unpublished work. As long as they aren't taking a stand on it, I'm not comfortable being "pretty sure" about the matter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
That is a fair point -- it may matter in what circumstances it is on the internet (personal home page, or widely-known page, etc.) The Copyright Office does not need to determine publication or not in this situation, so they don't -- if you register something for copyright, you can specify whether it is considered published or not. It has come up in court cases though, so judges have had to rule -- mainly on country of publication, so I don't think that publication itself was in doubt in those cases, given the wide availability. One is the case you mention, and the other (which ruled the opposite way) was Moberg v 33T. this link has references and quotes of both decisions. The Moberg case ruled that it was not simultaneous publication (which avoided the need to determine if it was publication, which they note is not settled law). However, the purpose of a propaganda drive is typically to reach as many people as possible, and I think it would be pretty hard in this case to claim it was unpublished. The Berne Convention states The expression `published works' means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. If the work is available on the Internet and advertised as such, that is probably enough for at least the Berne definition. But true, there probably are circumstances where something is available on the web but still unpublished. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2015 (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 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 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)

The Little Glass Bottle[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Kept as PD-US-no renewal--Jusjih (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
H. P. Lovecraft is always rather hairy, copyright-wise, but S. T. Joshi's H. P. Lovecraft and Lovecraft Criticism (1981, ISBN 0-87338-248-X) lists this as being first published in The Shuttered Room and Other Pieces, which has a renewal RE341797, 12Jun87, limited to "NM: new except six prev. pub. titles, The Commonplace book, The Books, The Gods, Dagon, The Strange high house in the mist, and The Outsider." Now, it does say "Author: H. P. Lovecraft, pseud. of August William Derleth." and was renewed by "April Derleth Jacobs & Walden William Derleth (C)" (C standing for children of the author), so the renewal is technically flawed, but ... I don't know the exact law here, and I suspect many judges would let them slide anyway. To call it PD is cutting some pretty thin hairs, I believe.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
In that case, it's probably not just The Little Glass Bottle which is affected. There are three other surviving juvenile stories: The Secret Cave, or John Lees Adventure, The Mystery of the Grave-Yard and The Mysterious Ship. They are all on Wikisource, and as far as I can tell, they were all first published in The Shuttered Room and Other Pieces. Pasicles (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Are we keeping them as PD-US-no renewal?--Jusjih (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2016 (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.[4] 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)


{{closed|Exported to Canadian Wikilivres:Pellucidar.--Jusjih (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)|text= Added today, Pellucidar is an Edgar Rice Burroughs novel that was published in 1923. Burroughs died in 1950—only 65 years ago. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

What relevance has his death date here? He's an American; about the only thing his death date matters is that anything by him first published after 2002 won't be PD for another 6 years. Pellucidar doesn't seem to have had its copyright renewed, if there was anything copyrightable about the 1923 publication--it was first serialized in 1915.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Yaaayyy!! We need more works by this amazing author!! I am, of course, clearly and completely unbiased about this matter. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Adding his works are physically not a problem: these are readily available; I also have many. But most are copyright-renewed as per Stanford search. Hrishikes (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I am reopening the case and leaving it to uninvolved administrator.--Jusjih (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I cant find a renewal for Pellucidar. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:18, 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)

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)

The Handbook to the Lutheran Hymnal/Through the Night of Doubt and Sorrow[edit]

This version of Through the Night of Doubt and Sorrow is from The Handbook to the Lutheran Hymnal, 1949, which appears to be still under copyright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the text (or score) any different from the other copies of SBG's translation that we host? If not, then copyright can't be claimed by the Handbook. If it is different, then it possibly is copyright. Hymn books are generally collections of works by many authors and the publishers have to get permission from each copyright holder. The only part of a hymn book that is copyright to its publisher is the special material such as forewords and any commentary written especially for the book. This means that if a hymn is out of copyright from its original publication, it can't be re-copyrighted simply by inclusion in a more modern collection. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
If it's not any different, then why are we hosting it here? I don't see any point in walking the edge of copyright here for a work we already have in multiple other formats.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

1896 (Cry Freedom)[edit]

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).[5] 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) 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 . On 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)
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)

Works by Author:Jibanananda Das[edit]

The originals are PD-India but not PD-US (published after 1923, author died in 1954). The work Fire Air Water seems to have been added by the translator. Translator not specified for other works, but added here by an admin of bn Wikipedia. The work Banalata Sen (Poem) was translated by the original author, judging from 1st line comparisons of different translations given in the corresponding Wikipedia article, accordingly PD-India. Seems to me that the works are suitable for Wikilivres. Hrishikes (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete and transfer to Wikilivres. Concur, PD-India, but not PD in the US. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol delete vote.svg Delete without transferring to Canadian Wikilivres if the source documents of the texts remain unknown.--Jusjih (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Available sources on the net
The first poem is easily available: 1, 2. (tr. original poet)
The 1st + 2nd poems: 3. (tr. original poet)
3rd poem: 4 (translated and uploaded here by S. M. Maniruzzaman).
4th poem (this is not a translation; this sonnet was originally written in English by the poet): available here
Hrishikes (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Again The Ringer[edit]

@Akme: says that he has been told that the work was published in 1929, though a scan is hosted at, 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 (, 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 ( 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)


There is a Tri-lingual Sanskrit-Marathi-Graman book Sukabahattari (शुक बहात्तरी) on this 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)

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: [6]

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)

The Hog[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Exported to Canadian Wikilivres:The Hog--Jusjih (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
See Wikisource:Scriptorium#The Hog. Basically it's a 1947 work first published in the US with a renewal. I don't know that the renewal does cover the stories (it claims it does), but on the face of it, it looks copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Sounds to me like Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Apart from that it is one chapter of a multi-chapter work, that is incomplete, not backed by images, and has had no second proofread. It should be properly labelled for CV discussion, and if it isn't CV, then the other aspects should still come into play for its retention. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The renewal being valid would probably depend on the terms of the contract with Hodgson's estate, but... odds are pretty decent its copyright got renewed, and will last until 2043. I'd say Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per above reasons. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:22, 29 January 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 @ 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 [[User: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) 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 (talk) .

Thusly, Per - 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 (talk) .

I've put the text itself, with all original text by User: removed, at User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/Caldwell. 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)
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 ‪‬ (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 (talk) .

AWK Language Programming[edit]

It has the following license: Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this manual provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies.

Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission notice identical to this one.

Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this manual into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions, except that this permission notice may be stated in a translation approved by the Foundation.

which I expect won't be compatible with CC-BY-SA-3.0. Prosody (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It may not be compatible, but neither is GFDL or many other licenses. That may qualify to be free though -- there is no noncommercial exception, and there is explicit permission for derivative works, with a share-alike type clause. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep on the basis of probability that it is free and until some can demonstrate a clear understanding that we should not host with such licensing. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a new version of this document distributed with GAWK that's licensed:
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the Invariant Sections being "GNU General Public License", with the Front-Cover Texts being "A GNU Manual", and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
a. The FSF's Back-Cover Text is: "You have the freedom to copy and modify this GNU manual."
It is not entirely true that the original is a free document; one is not free to change the GNU GPL, though removing it from the document would be fine. It is an ever-changing software manual, possibly better served by someone else. Moreover, we should probably work from the Texinfo file instead an HTML derivative, if we are going to host it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Very strange licence. You can distribute modifications and translations, but there is nothing granting you the right to modify or translate the document, so it's unclear how you would obtain the modifications or translations in the first place. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I think permission to actually modify or translate is implied by those terms. Really, the ability to do that for private use is always covered by fair use -- it's just distributing the result which is really prohibited by law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:14, 31 January 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)

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

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

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

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

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

The Cats[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
A poem by H. P. Lovecraft.
The concern being? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Presumably that there is no licence, no source, and no date of publication. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Per here, first published in 1977. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:17, 2 February 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? -- 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, 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: -- 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, 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. -- 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)

Anne's diary[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: speedy deleted, original subject to a takedown notice
Pinging translators @L.tak, @FlippyFlink:

See here. It appears that The Diary of Anne Frank is still under copyright. :( --Yair rand (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - Unfortunately, I have to agree. The proposed policy WS:TRANS#Wikisource original translations says "A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki …". Now that the original nl work has been taken down as copyvio, we cannot host this user translation until 2044. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Not an option to do otherwise. @Jalexander (WMF): to note. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:52, 11 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)

UO Astronomy 123 Elementary Particles[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted as CV,no fair use allowed
The content for UO Astronomy 123 Elementary Particles was taken from . There is no evidence of public licensing of this content. It may be linked to, but not copied. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I had already spoken with the contributor, and I was more concerned with the images which were used by the author as fair use, and therefore not able to be hosted here. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Index:The Collective Unconscious and Its Archetypes.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted as CC terms were non-commercial — billinghurst sDrewth 00:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Source work and license don't match.

Claimed license : Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported

Actual license at file source - Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 (

Needs OTRS if uploaded officially.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

File has been deleted by Commons, so we need to review Index: and Page:billinghurst sDrewth 05:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
All namespace issues addressed. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Deleted as creative commons terms outside of scope for enWS. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Index:Between Postmodernism, Positivism and (New) Atheism.pdf[edit]

Claimed license:- Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International

License given at source :- "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License." ( Needs OTRS if officially released under less restrictive terms.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree, ND Symbol delete vote.svg Deletebillinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Sadly agree. Their pages say both "All articles published in this journal are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution license." (linking to /by/, which is "free") and "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. " with ND logo (linking to the /by-nd/ license, which is NOT "free"), and also the HTML includes <meta name="DC.Rights" content=""/>, and IMO their DC metadata should be take as authoritative given the confused messages on their website.
@Calebjbaker:, are you interested in talking to the journal to clarify? If not, sorry your work will be deleted ;-( John Vandenberg (chat) 02:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps another contributor wishes to do this but I do not. Laozi said Work is done and then forgotten, therefore, it lasts forever. calebjbaker (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Index:Sm all cc.pdf[edit]

According to the source of this work[7], "The original work was created by Richard D. Jarrard and remains his intellectual property." The document[8] 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 [9] 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: 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—[10]. 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]

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)

Index:National Building Code of India 2005.djvu[edit]

Claimed license at Commons is not correct, BIS isn't necessarily a legislature. Furthermore the site listed as the source at Commons has from reading some other documents on the site, been approached by various "standards" organisations over it's somewhat "liberal" attitude to copyright issues. Unless there is a clear indication that the BIS has released this in a commons compatible manner and there is a DIRECT confirmation of this with an OTRS, this is going to have to be treated as non-free. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Further to the above, found on source site - [[11]] - BIS think what the listed source is doing IS copyright viiolation. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
It is allowed as per Section 52 (1) (q) (iii) of the Indian Copyright Act: the report of any committee, commission, council, board or other like body appointed by the government if such report has been laid on the Table of the Legislature, unless the reproduction or publication of such report is prohibited by the government; This Standard was made by a government-appointed committee; and as per Section 39 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986: Every rule and every regulation made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or regulation or both Houses agree that the rule or regulation should not be made, the rule or regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule or regulation. Accordingly this standard, a statutory regulation by BIS, had to be tabled in the Indian parliament, and therefore it comes under the proviso of Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act, hence template EdictGov-India. The objection of the BIS, as cited by SF, is as per later rules, e.g. Section 11. (1) of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act 2016: No individual shall, without the authorisation of the Bureau, in any manner or form, publish, reproduce or record any Indian Standard or part thereof, or any other publication of the Bureau. The publication was of 2005, accordingly it was made under the 1986 act. Moreover, as the URAA came into force in 1996, so the 1986 act comes under URAA cognizance, and not the 2016 act. Hrishikes (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Withdrawn per reasoning given by uploader at Commons. Can be taken down if there are external objections though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Two possible copyvios[edit]

I present two deletion candidates for consideration, by pointing to the discussion topics where they were last noted: (above)

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

Something of Myself[edit]

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)