Wikisource:Copyright discussions

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

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

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

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

Quick reference to copyright term

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


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)

(@John Vandenberg:) We even have GFDL explicitly listed as a compatible license for works that can be hosted here. I don't understand the legal considerations well enough to know the best way to proceed. If we can't convince the WMF to update the terms of use to allow for WS, then an exemption doctrine policy looks like the only feasible solution listed above. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of all GFDL-only works[edit]

What is the status on this? Do we need to delete all GFDL-only works uploaded since 2008-11-01 under our current policy? I'd support an EDP, but I don't see a lot of discussion on proposals of that kind so I don't think we're likely to get any kind of consensus on such a change in the near future.

If there are no further comments on this discussion I think I will move this forward as follows: first, a proposal for EDP on the Scriptorium; and if there is no consensus or no discussion I will just delete all works tagged GFDL-only that were uploaded since 2008. Here is a list of all the works tagged GFDL:

Translation:2007 Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation Establishment Decree
27 December 2009 Commentary by John Yettaw
Talk:27 December 2009 Commentary by John Yettaw
Translation:À Eugène Lefébure - Monday 27 May 1867
A Short History of Russian "Fantastica"/Epilogue
A Short History of Russian "Fantastica"/Part 1
A Short History of Russian "Fantastica"/Part 2
A Short History of Russian "Fantastica"/Part 3
A Short History of Russian "Fantastica"/Part 4
A Short History of Russian "Fantastica"/Part 5
A Short History of Russian "Fantastica"/Supplement 1 to part 4
A Short History of Russian "Fantastica"/Supplement 2 to part 4
A Short History of Russian "Fantastica"/Supplement to Part 5
A Wodehouse Miscellany
Ad notam. Diverse years' notes
Translation:Address of the Fils de la liberté of Montreal to the young people of the colonies of North America
Affirmation of the Global Nonkilling Spirit
The Amnesty
An Anarchist FAQ
An Appeal to the Red Army
User:Anonymous101/The generous poor man
Translation:Another letter from P.R. Slaveikov - February 1874
Architekton Alexi Rilets
Translation:Audi filia et
Translation:Augusto Bonetti to the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith
Translation:Auld Lang Syne
Awakening (Pushkin)
Translation:Beijing City Public Security Bureau Order to Search and Arrest Escaping Members of "Beijing Higher Education Student Autonomy Union"
Translation:The Best Place for a Village
Biography of Guan Yu
Translation:Bishop Augusto Bonetti on the talks with Theodosius, the Metropolitan of Skopje
Translation:Bollettino della Vittoria
Book of Mormon (Plain English Version)
Translation:Boze Pravde
Bridge of Arta
The Bullfinch (Derzhavin)
But Could You?
Translation:Call to Arms (Lu Xun)
The careful and muted sound
Translation:Catullus 39
The Christmas trees are shining
Clouds will separate us
Comprehensive Picture of Spring
Translation:The conditions of transfer of Macedonian eparchies to Union with the Roman Catholic Church
Translation:The congregation for the propagation of the faith to Augusto Bonetti
Translation:The congregation for the propagation of the Faith to Augusto Bonetti - Second letter
Constitution of May 3, 1791
Translation:Cor nostrum
Country Report - Yugoslavia
Translation:Cum ex injuncto
Translation:Cum non solum
Translation:Customs of Lorris
Dagome Iudex
Translation:The Dark Realm
The Dark Side of Scientology
Translation:Das Deutschlandlied
Translation:De sinu patris
Declaration of Horace Sébastiani in French Chamber of Deputies about situation in Poland (1831)
Declaration of Lawrence H. Brennan
Translation:Dei Patris Immensa
Translation:Departing from Baidi in the Morning
Di – stance: versts, miles
The dull air is moist and resounding
Translation:Ea est in fovendis
Translation:El Coloquio de los Doce
Elegy 1830 (Pushkin)
Translation:Epistle to the Laodiceans
Fables and Parables
Fading Voices
"Farewell, Farewell, Unwashed Russia"
For an End to the Policy of Reprisals
For Freedom and Truth
Free as in Freedom (2002)
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Appendix A
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Appendix B
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 1
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 10
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 11
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 12
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 13
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 2
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 3
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 4
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 5
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 6
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 7
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 8
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 9
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Epilogue
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Preface
Free as in Freedom 2.0
Translation:The Free French to their Canadien Brothers
Free Software and Free Media
Portal:Free Software Foundation
Free Software Matters: The Public's Business
Translation:Frog Poem (Sitnitsky)
Translation:Frog Poem (Smirnov)
From beneath a mysterious and ice-cold half-mask
Translation:From the Field they are Going, Father
From the semi-dark hall, suddenly
Functional Package Management with Guix
Translation:Give It Up!
Translation:GNOOV internal affairs division 1040/1945
GNU Emacs Manual
Translation:The Golden Age (Martí)
Translation:Le Grand Meaulnes
Translation:Great Peace of Montreal
Guanabara Confession
Hagia Sophia
Translation:The Helmsman
Translation:Hino Nacional do Brasil (free translation)
Translation:Hino Nacional do Brasil (literal translation)
Translation:History of Guan Yin Hall
History of national Internet domain
Translation:History of the Insurrection in Canada in refutation of the report of Lord Durham
The Hon. Louis-Joseph Papineau's Address to the Electors of the Counties of St. Maurice and of Huntingdon (First Manifesto)
The Horse (Pushkin)
Translation:How Kraljevic Marko Learned to be a Hero
How Krill feeds
How the Scientology Organization uses and exploits the United States' legal system for its own ends
Translation:Hujusmodi salutationis nostrae
I Loved You Once
Translation:I Take My Leave of You
I'm given a body – what to do with it?
Insomnia. Homer. The rows of stretched sails
Translation:The Internationale (Kots)
Translation:The Internationale (Pottier, French)
Translation:The Internationale (National Revolutionary Army)
Translation:The Internationale (Qu)
Into the circling choral dance of shadows that trampled the soft meadow
Invocation by Laughter
Isim – e – Zat conference Speech
Translation:İstiklâl Marşı (1)
Translation:İstiklâl Marşı (2)
Jason Beghe speech at That is Scientology! Reports from the USA
Translation:Kimi ga Yo
Larry Brennan speech at That is Scientology! Reports from the USA
User:LarryGilbert/Bolonga Declaration
A Legend of Old Egypt
Translation:Letter from Gotse Delchev to Nikola Maleshevski (1899)
Letter from Louis-Joseph Papineau to George Bancroft - December 18, 1837
Translation:A letter from P.R. Slaveykov to the Bulgarian Exarch
Translation:List of Frequently Used Characters in Modern Chinese
The Living Telegraph
Longer Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya Sūtra
Translation:The Macedonian question
Translation:Call to Arms (Lu Xun)/A Madman's Diary
Translation:Mainz Anonymous
Translation:The Man Who Planted Trees
Manifesto Against Conscription and the Military System
Translation:A Manifesto from the Provisional Government of Macedonia - 1881
Translation:Manifesto of the headquarters of the Macedonian army - 1880
Marc Headley speech at That is Scientology! Reports from the USA
User:Mathieugp/Drafts/Appeal to the Justice of the State (Epistle to General Haldimand)
A meagre beam in a cold measure
Translation:Mikraot Gedolot
Mold of the Earth
More tender than tender
Translation:The Morning Hymn
The Most General Life Ideals
Mozart and Salieri
Translation:My Country is My Love
Translation:The Nail Broth
Translation:National Anthem of the Republic of China
Neolinguistic Manifesto
Night. City calmed down
Translation:Nihil novi
On Discoveries and Inventions
Translation:On Fortune
Translation:On individual means for respiratory organs protection against dust
Translation:On Individual protective means for workers' respiratory organs (review of literature)
On Macedonian Matters
On some controversies regarding origin and nationality of Nezami Ganjavi
Translation:One Can't Please the World
One Question
Translation:Ordinance 93-027 of 30 March 1993 on copyright, related rights and expressions of folklore
Translation:Orohydrography of Macedonia
Translation:Overview of Industrial Testing Outcome of Respiratory Organs Personal Protection Equipment
Translation:The Peach Blossom Spring
The Pine Tree
Piping autumn wind
Translation:Plant a tree
Translation:Ploughing of Marko Kraljevic
Translation:Preface to the Poems Composed at the Orchid Pavilion
Translation:Proper use of gas masks as prevention of occupational diseases
Translation:Reducing the harmful effects of polluted air at workplaces using respiratory PPE
User:Rekrutacja/Neolinguistic Manifesto
The Religion of God
Report about the first school district to start teaching in the Macedonian language
Translation:Romance of the Three Kingdoms
The Rose said: “Oh, my most radiant beauty
Translation:Rose VII
Translation:Rose XLVIII
Sacred song heals the sick spirit
The Sail
Seattle: Booms and Busts
Shades (Prus, tr. Kasparek)
A Short History of Russian "Fantastica"
Translation:Short Song Style
Shorter Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra
The Singer (Pushkin)
Sisters heaviness and tenderness – your signs are the same
Translation:The Slum
Translation:A Song about Serbian Time
Translation:Song of Everlasting Regret
Soon they have to die
Translation:Sorrow, Zare, let's Sorrow
Translation:A Sparrow and a Cat
Translation:Speech of the Hon. Louis-Joseph Papineau before the Institut canadien on the occasion of the 23rd anniversary of this society, December 17, 1867
Spider, say again
Translation:St. Edmund, King and Martyr
Translation:St. John the Baptist's Day Banquet
Translation:The Still that Died
Translation:The Story of the Stone
The Tale of Mac Dathó's Pig
The Tale of the Dead Princess
Translation:Tales of the New Era
Translation:Tao Te Ching
Translation:Tell me, Tell
Translation:A tender noisy troublemaker ...
Teng Wang Ge Xu
The Antoninus Agadot in Medrash and Talmud
Translation:The Cricket
The first Constitution of Macedonia - Kresna 1878
Translation:The House of Cards
The Mirabeau Bridge
Translation:The Pasha and the Dervish
Translation:Theodosius, the metropolitan of Skopje, to Archimandhite Dionysius
Translation:Theodosius, the metropolitan of Skopje, to Pope Leo XIII
Translation:There, Over There
Translation:Though the Tortoise Lives Long
Time's river in its rushing current
Translation:To My Dear People!
Translation:To One Who Does Nothing, Yet Defames the Work of Others
To read only children's books
Translation:To the Virgin Mary
To*** Kern
Tohfa-tul Majalis
Translation:Touring Shanxi Village
Transcript of The System Of Ownership Of Ideas
Translation:Travels in Southern France's départements
Triṃśikā Vijñaptimātratā
Tsar Dukljan
Un coup de dés jamais n'abolira le hasard
Up out of an evil clinging pool
Translation:Velika Togenburg
Translation:Viam Agnoscere Veritatis
Translation:Wald honors its Freedom Hero Devaranne
What do you mean to the world? – Nothing!
What Is Soviet Power?
What is the benefit of our arrival and departure?
Where have we come from? Where are we going?
Translation:Whoe'er in Heav'n above Does Wish to See on Earth
Why the United States must investigate the crimes, abuses and frauds of the Scientology enterprise
Wikipedia- The Missing Manual
Translation:Will of Chiang Kai-shek
With Blood and Iron

Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleting such works makes no sense to me. As does making GFDL an "incompatible" license. We should basically allow licenses similar to Wikimedia Commons (which has no formal EDP yet allows them anyways, despite being subject to the same terms of use). I think conflating the terms of use (which make sense for collaborative texts, and talk page stuff, etc.) into which external works we can import does not make much sense. I guess locally-created translations are the main issue -- we may need to disallow GFDL-only for those, as other editors should be allowed to tweak them, etc. Weren't existing GFDL translations changed to a combo GFDL/CC-BY-SA at some point? If not, can we still make that change? If not, I would grandfather those, and bar GFDL-only on new translations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I am no expert on the situation, but my understanding is as follows.
  • Works uploaded before the cutoff (2008-11-01) under GFDL-only are ok; they did not get changed to GFDL/CC-BY-SA but they are exempt from the Terms of Use so they can stay. This includes both imported works and original content by editors.
  • Original works created by editors after the cutoff (including local translations) cannot be GFDL-only, so that doesn't matter.
  • The terms of use explicitly say that importing text "available only under GFDL is not permissible." This is not conflating the terms of use, this is a direct quote. The terms have separate articles for text and non-text so Commons is not really relevant.
The list above is all the texts that are GFDL, but many of them may be pre-cutoff or dual-licensed and therefore hostable. I didn't have time to comb through the list.
The whole discussion (to my understanding) boils down to this: the terms of use forbid GFDL-only imported text since a certain date, and we have GFDL-only imported text since that certain date, so how can we address the situation? Two options only have been suggested: an EDP, or deletion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Anything in the Translation: namespace is user created, so I don't understand why you listed them. Are you proposing to delete those or not? They make up a considerable proportion of your list. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Like I said, the list is a list of all GFDL works. It contains, but is not limited to, the post-2008 GFDL-only works that User:John Vandenberg proposed for deletion. If you want to go through the list and remove ones that do not meet the post-2008 GFDL-only criteria, go for it; I don't have time to do so. The list doesn't matter. I don't care about the list. What matters is that there is a significant corpus of post-2008 GFDL-only works on this site, and that in the absence of discussion all such works will need to be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, if we don't even know which items are being considered, then I say postpone any discussion or decision until we have a specific list to be considered. These could simply be incorrectly tagged; they could be pre-2008; they could be original user-generated translations; they could be anything. As it stands, we don't know the status of these items so it is premature to even discuss them, much less delete them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
OK. But, Commons is subject to the same terms of use, but allows GFDL-only media, if that is the license. That includes PDFs, etc. It really does not make sense to bar those. The terms of use are more for collaborative texts, where multiple editors need to work on them, and create original content. For the primary texts of Wikisource, that is not the case -- editors simply duplicate already-existing text so there is no new copyright added, so there should be no licensing concerns. To bar GFDL-only texts because of the terms of use does not make sense to me -- those are not written by contributors to this site. They are still "free" and we had always allowed them. Wikipedia does not bar the use of GFDL-only images being used in the articles -- just on the collaborative text because that is really the only way collaborative text can work, legally. The Translation: namespace probably does come under those collaborative concerns, but for original works which we are simply copying, I don't think the terms of use were targeted at those, and I'm not sure I see any problem with them. If we should create an EDP to make that explicit, fine, although I don't think that hosting free works necessarily requires one. I simply think that applying the terms of use to imported texts does not make any sense -- that should just be a "free work" requirement, like it has always been. The change in the primary licensing should not have affected the core content that we can host. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I agree it doesn't make sense. But the terms that forbid GFDL-only explicitly apply to imported text (section 7c), and not for collaborative original content nor for non-text media. The most sensible approach would be to fix the terms of use to be more sensible, but EDP would be more feasible. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Yes, but importing text on Wikipedia and just about any other project comes with the assumption that it will be modified from there. Wikisource is still different. I don't think Commons would have any issues uploading GFDL PDFs, if they were a source document. But an EDP would be fine, even if not exactly what they were meant for (they are normally an exemption to allow use of non-free works in certain circumstances, which we are not trying to do). I guess we are trying to get around a terms of use that some people think apply to this case, when I don't think it was at all intended, and I don't think WMF would have an issue with anyways. They would be the only ones to enforce the terms, so if they do actually consider this a problem and they want to ask for deletion, then OK, but short of that I don't see the need to delete them. They are not a copyright issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2017 (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)

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).[1] 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)
It looks to me like the w:Ruhnama is the source of the translation; it's definitely an official translation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2017 (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)

I've sent them an email; a copy of it is at User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/National anthems/email
There has been no response to a few attempts to reach them... I'm inclined to take their word for it when it comes to licensing, and make a note of it on the talk page in the textinfo template. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
And, having said that, I just got a response: "I apologize about the delay; we will have to look at each translation ans find out. But it would be something we would love to do, since David and myself are Wikimedians." We might be able to get some decent coverage of national anthems on this site after all :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
After further discussion with them, they do not have records of the source of their translations; I don't think their website can be used as evidence of license. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
commons:Template:PD-TM-exempt says that state symbols and sign like anthem is not an object of copyright, but how about translation licensing?--Jusjih (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or, in the case of foreign government edicts:

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

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

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

General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Kept--Jusjih (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
1851 work where the translation was published in 1923 as claimed at the source and by the contributor. As the US cut off is the end of 1922 for free from copyright, it does not seem that we can host the work unless we can demonstrate that the work did not meet US copyright requirements. It would seem that the translation would not come of copyright until 95 years after publication. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
As the contributor who posted it, I'll admit the error of trusting too much in the source's assertion that the work was in the public domain. In the hour and a half or so since the copyright issue was raised, I did make a rudimentary search for some indication as to whether or not Freedom Press renewed the copyright after the first 28 years was up, but the fact that I came up empty-handed in that search does not in itself suggest that the copyright was never renewed. To be on the safe side, we could delete it for now, and then it could be put back up when we're more certain that the copyright has actually expired. It's not like it would be that terribly long of a wait.—MNTRT2009 (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
If the translator is John Beverley Robinson, and this old Wikipedia article is right about him being an American who died in 1923, then I don't see a renewal, and it would have expired in 1993 in the UK, meaning the URAA would not have resurrected the copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, if published in the UK or US. This also says he died in 1923. There was definitely an architect by that name who died in 1923, who wrote at least one book, and this seems to be the same person. If published in the UK, it would have expired there in 1974, and not been restored in 1996 (as it was also beyond 70pma), thus there is no URAA restoration. And unless Mr. Robinson was actually living in the UK, it would not have been eligible for the URAA anyways (I think there needed to be at least one rightsholder who was either a national or domiciliary of a non-U.S. country -- an American simply publishing a work in a foreign country would not have been eligible for restoration). Thus, it seems like the work would have needed to be renewed. If no U.S. renewal, then it would seem to be OK as PD-US-not_renewed (and PD-old-80 for users in other countries). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
If the copyright was renewed, Stanford doesn't have the renewal in its catalog, so I'm tending to suspect that it was never renewed (especially considering the knowledge that Robinson had been dead for 28 years when it came time to renew the copyright).—MNTRT2009 (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

1922 non-US renewed works[edit]

In working through some copyright renewals, I've noticed stuff like

THE ENCHANTED APRIL, by the author of "Elizabeth and her German garden" [i. e. Mary Annette Beauchamp Russell, countess] © 5Jan23, (pub. abroad 31Oct22, AI-4698), A696165. R56839, 6Jan50, Mrs. Corwin M. Butterworth (C), Mrs. Eustace Graves (C) & H. B. Arnim (C)

This seems to imply that that this is treated as a 1923 work, instead of as a 1922 work, despite the fact it was published in 1922. Is this right?--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

for us, the US edition may be in copyright, so we probably ensure we have the British edition if we think that it is problematic. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Pretty sure the 28-year term would start from the foreign publication (if it was in English). From the Compendium II:
1311 Works first published abroad in English. Under the Act of 1909, as amended, ad interim copyright was a short-term copyright available to English-language books and periodicals which were manufactured and first published abroad. It was secured by registration within six months of first publication abroad and lasted for a maximum of five years from the date of publication. Copyright could be extended to the full 28-year term if a U.S. edition was manufactured and published within five years after first publication abroad, and if a claim to copyright in the U.S. edition was also registered.
1311.01 Both editions registered. If ad interim and full-term registrations were both made within the proper time limits, renewal registration may be made to cover both editions.
1311.03 Separate applications. Where separate applications are submitted, each application must be filed within the 28th calendar year of the term of copyright in the particular edition it covers. The Copyright Office will annotate each application to refer to the other edition.
1311.03(a) Late application. If the renewal application is received more than 28 years from the end of the year of first publication abroad, registration will be refused because the application was received too late. The applicant may submit a new application covering the U.S. edition alone, if that edition contained new matter, and if the application was submitted during the renewal period applicable to the new matter.
1311.05 Foreign edition never registered. If the foreign edition of a work was never registered ad interim, but the later U.S. edition was registered, the Copyright Office will accept a renewal application covering the U.S. edition. In the case of an application received during the 28th year measured from the end of the year of foreign publication, a cautionary letter will be sent stating that the registration is of doubtful validity. In the case of an application received more than 28 years from the end of the year of foreign publication, the cautionary letter will explain that renewal registration covers only the new matter, if any, in the U.S. edition. A new matter statement will not be required on the renewal application, unless a new matter statement appeared on the original application.
So, it would seem the 28-year clock and copyright renewal was counted from the date of foreign publication, although if there was new matter in the U.S. edition, then of course that new matter would use the later date. That entry looks like both the ad interim and U.S. versions were registered and validly renewed; but any matter in the foreign edition should be PD, and only new matter in the U.S. edition would still be under copyright (for another year and a half). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Works of Author:Carson Cistulli ?[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted all works as unlicensed--Jusjih (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Looking at some of the works listed at the author page, and following links, I haven't seen evidence that any of the works are in the public domain. The author talk page makes some claims, though I don't see evidence. I would appreciate if someone could double check and see if I am missing the obvious. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The works of the author

have no evidence that they are in the public domain. So these works and the author page should be deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Also, previous discussion on this topic found no evidence to corroborate the claim of PD or CC license.Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I see that the about page at the New Enthusiast website has a contact address. When I have some time, I may drop an email to ask about copyright of the works (unless someone beats me to it). — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: did you have a chance to contact them on this issue? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and sent an email. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
With no response I still !vote Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Imam Ali's First Sermon in His Peak of Eloquence[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Translation by Syed Mohammad Askari Jafrey, first published in Pakistan in 1960 [2]. Pakistan is 50 pma, translator to my knowledge is still living. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Letter from Ali Khan, Majid Khan's father[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
A letter reproduced from a publication. No evidence that the work has been released to the publid domain or freely licensed, though I can understand that it may be displayed as fair use at some places, that is not our criteria. @Geo Swan:billinghurst sDrewth 02:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Index:A Book of the West (vol. 2).djvu[edit]

In checking the illustration credits I found a possible problem with this, namely F.D. Bedford is listed who seems to be Francis Donkin Bedford (1864–1954), meaning their artwork isn't out of copyright in the UK.

The book itself IS PD-US though, it just can't be hosted at Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Strongly suggest checking Volume 1 which was transcribed previously as well.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Looks like you're probably right, so this work should be moved to local. I don't see Bedford cited in Vol. 1, but all the illustrators should be checked. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I've uploaded the file locally and nominated the Commons version for deletion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

File:War poems.djvu[edit]

This work was marked as 1900 by the Internet Archive, but Wikipedia and Lord Dunsany: Master of the Anglo-Irish Imagination give its date as 1941, which is consistent with the references to Adolf Hitler. There does not seem to be a renewal, but there's no evidence one was needed either.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: When IA is not certain of the date of a work, it is sometimes assigned a century year, e.g. 1800 or 1900. For any work dated this way, a check ought to be made. We might want to look at other works so dated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete All sources I can find suggest it was first published in 1941 by Hutchison and is thus still in copyright in most countries (p.m.a. 60 for Lord Dunsany). --Xover (talk) 04:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, we won't be at p.m.a. 60 until next year. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. If it did need renewal, I don't find such a US copyright renewal in 1968 or 1969. Certainly, it's still under copyright in the UK until 2028, so if it is PD-US, we'd have to host it locally. However, I don't see any evidence that it was published in the US, so it ought to be under copyright because of the URAA. WorldCat gives London and Melbourne as the only places of publication in 1941. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Lord Dunsany: A Comprehensive Bibliography: Second Edition lists but one edition of this work, that published in London in 1941.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

All works under Category:PD-IndonesianGov[edit]

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

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

Index:Niger Delta Ecosystems- the ERA Handbook, 1998.pdf[edit]

Note: the text in question is now at Page:Niger Delta Ecosystems- the ERA Handbook, 1998.djvu/239Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I've omitted text here Page:Niger_Delta_Ecosystems-_the_ERA_Handbook,_1998.pdf/239 because it was a third party document quoted in full, and currently Wikisource doesn't allow fair use.

However, I'd like a second opinion.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there any info on the quoted document that would indicate its copyright status? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Not really, the accompanying text seems to imply it was an internal company document (and thus not necessarily formally published originally.).ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
If it wasn't published previously, I think that means that this copy is the original publication, and so (and I could be wrong) the copyright of the whole work applies to this quoted work too. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Index:Miscellanea, Volume IX.djvu[edit]

Although this was published in 1914 and is listed as PD-70 on Commons, There's no additional information given to confirm this. I will be checking for individual author names. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

This what I've found so far.

  • Rev J.H Pollen. S.J (1858-1925)
  • William Martin Hunnybun (1839-1932)
  • Josepeh Gillow (1850-1921)
  • Joseph Stanislaus Hansom, FRIBA (1845-1931)
  • Rev. Bede Jarrett OP (1881–1934)
  • Carlisle James Scott Spedding (1852 - 1915)
  • James Rae Baterden (1854 - 1937)
  • Mrs Martin?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Clearly OK as PD-US (pre 1923 publication), ans based on the above identified authors possibly PD-70 as at Commons, but it would be nice to have some information on the currently identified authors for which no dates exist currently and which I've not been able to determine from online sources ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Carlisle James Scott Spedding 1852 - 1915
  • Mrs T. E. Martin is the indexer, worked with Miss M. A. B. Martin on later editions; her address is listed in the member roll at the back of the book. Not sure if that's useful.
Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Where is it listed? I can probably do some digging if there is an address. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't notice that this particular index doesn't have the list of members after the Index. But the info I found is as follows:
  • 1904 [3] Martin, Mrs. T. E., Heatley, Cricket Field Road, Torquay.
  • 1913 [4] Martin, Mrs. (T. E.), 6 Wimborne Gardens, Ealing. W.
Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Cannot find her or her daughter on that information. There were over 200 Martins in Torquay in 1900 census, and nothing obvious for herself or daughter, or husband (though he may have well been dead); nor anything overtly obvious for Ealing in 1911 census. Noting that TE Martinwas back in Torquay in 1921, showing as life member of CRS. Without more information, eg. personal names, it is going to be next to impossible to identify. Someone may be able to write to CRS and see if they could provide that information as she would have been an early life member. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks... That's one done, Pagelisted the work in any event.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks , Likely this is work is OK, but pinning down Baterden as a pre 1946 death would be good. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
James R. Baterden died 1937, aged 85. Lichfield. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: where did you find that info? just curious. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
FreeBMD (most likely), I have other sources for this and others. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A Mick in Israel and Dreaming[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Withdrawn. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
US license?--Jusjih (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Both were first published in The Last of the Trunk Och Brev I Urval according to The Neverending Hunt, which means they're {{PD-old-US|1936}} and {{PD-posthumous|2007}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Puntofijo Pact[edit]

A pact between political parties of Venezuela. Not a government work. Hrishikes (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

According to commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Venezuela, Venezuela is basically life+60. Rafael Caldera, one of the signers, lived to 2009. So it will be out of copyright no earlier than 2070 in Venezuela, unless someone lived longer (I only checked a couple signers.) The Spanish original will be out of copyright for 1958 or 1959 + 95 years from publication in the US, in 2055 or 2056. I don't see any exception in the law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Yes it's copyvio of course, but I don't think it is a matter of individual copyright. The signers represented their political parties, so copyright should rest with the political parties. That means, it is a matter of organisational copyright, isn't it? Hrishikes (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter much for US law for pre-1978 works, and this was in copyright in Venezuela in 1996, so the URAA would have restored it. I suspect the signers wrote at least part of it, and as far as I know, most countries will give them a copyright at least until the last known author is dead.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I am not arguing that it is not copyrighted, just the opposite. But as an academic curiosity, I want to understand the nature of the copyright. Had it been a treaty between governments, copyright would be with the governments concerned, not the signers. Here too, the signers acted "on behalf" of their parties. So how is it that the signers are copyright-holders and not the parties? How is the scenario different from a government treaty in the matter of copyright assignment? Can you point to any such law/rule/court judgment, as per which representatives of an organisation should get the copyright to what they signed, and not their organisations? Hrishikes (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Had it been a treaty, it would be a whole different matter. w:Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l denied copyright on a building code that was enacted as part of law.
I don't know about copyright holders--except for the US, it doesn't have much to do with what I do--but copyright duration usually goes by the life of the authors. (In this case, I could be wrong, but it strikes me as a work that Rafael Caldera and the other signers were at least partially authors of.) If you look at w:List of countries' copyright lengths, films are frequently an exception to the life+n rules, but just as frequently films get a duration based on the life of a number of people: e.g. for France, it's the author of the scenario, the author of the dialogue, the author of the musical compositions, with or without words, specially composed for the work and the main director. Copyright is rarely in the hands of any of those people, but the length of the film is still based on them. In the US, works made for hire are treated the same as anonymous works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I did not respond earlier, being somewhat confused. Now after some reading, I still feel that organisational copyright is correct in this case. In US law, this is called "work made for hire". Chapter 1, Section 101 of the US law gives a long definition, including many items, including films. Two are pertinent here: "a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment" and "a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work". A treaty or a pact is certainly a "collective work", being signed by multiple persons. It can be assumed that this pact was commissioned by the concerned political parties who had empowered the representatives to contribute and sign on their behalf, otherwise the political parties would not have abided by the terms of the treaty, which they did. Therefore, organisational copyright, and not individual, should be assumed in this case. What is your take? Hrishikes (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
US law here is simply different from that of many other nations here. Copyright duration in many nations are based purely on life of the author or authors. The organization may hold the copyright, but that's irrelevant to the duration.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The article contributor has stated on the work that it is {{PD-VenezuelaGov}}, and this may or may not cover the original work, it does not cover a translation which would also have a copyright, and would seem to place it into the Symbol delete vote.svg Delete basket. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
You can go ahead and delete. I thought I had the correct copyright information but I did not realize there was one required for any translations. Thank you!--ZiaLater (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

PD status for new non-USA works that are PD in source country[edit]

Just a stupid question. A non-US work that was written/published AFTER the URAA date 1996, and is PD in its source country: is it PD in the USA? I think that such works are frequently presumed to be PD in the USA, but I don't know whether that is actually true. Two examples for context: 1. {{PD-release}}; 2. Works such as national anthems, which are NOT {{PD-EdictGov}}, but which are legally exempted from copyright in their source country. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

PD-release would work like a CC license, without the restrictions. If the copyright-holder releases it, then that is final, no copyright infringement can happen from any country's law. For example, the Government of Tamil Nadu has nationalized scores of books by eminent people (see here) after acquiring the copyright and released them into the public domain. Those books have been included in Tamil Wikisource. Hrishikes (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

In Plenty and In Time of Need[edit]

According to the Barbados Copyright Act, 1982 [6]: "3. Notwithstanding the provision of any Act to the contrary, the copyright in the words and music of the National Anthem and in the design of the National Emblems is vested in the Crown in perpetuity." Furthermore, I see no other reason to consider this in the public domain: author is still living, lyrics are not printed in any legislation, etc. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Kafka translations by Ian Johnston[edit] has a horde of translations of works, under a non-commercial license. For the shorter Kafka works, it links to whose license is ambiguous. We host at least two, A Hunger Artist and The Judgement. The license given is "Students, teachers, artists, and members of the general public are free to download and distribute the following texts without permission and without charge." It lacks permission to publically perform, and explicit permission to sell, as well as limiting the rights to "Students, teachers, artists, and members of the general public" (which could be argued to not limit anything, but it is a legal principle that the exception proves the rule, that if you list four groups that can use the work, you must have intended to exclude people not in those groups.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. The copyright page makes the noncommercial aspect explicit: "No commercial publishing of these materials is permitted, without the written permission of Ian Johnston." I think these can be speedy deleted for this reason. Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Note - some of the works on his website are explicitly public domain, e.g. On Marquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude [7]. I assume that such a notice overrides the sitewide license, but I am open to being corrected. Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Work published in India in 1931. Translator died in 1967, editor in 1964. Neither PD-1923 nor PD-India. Hrishikes (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment by uploader:
This book may be deleted as I am doubtful about its copyright. Thanks. --Sushant savla (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page. Hrishikes (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done It looks as though Commons came to the same conclusion. The work has no release for copyright indicated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Mozilla Public Licenses[edit]

Are the texts of the Mozilla Public Licenses (1.0, 1.1, 2.0) compatible with our copyright policy? I don't think the text of the MPL is itself licensed under the MPL. @Ciridae: I saw you worked on this recently and you may have some valuable input on this question.

Also: are texts released under the MPL compatible with our copyright policy? (Assuming they are also in scope.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Texts released under the MPL are compatible with our copyright policy as such works are accepted at Commons. I am unsure how the MPL text itself is licensed. There is no real copyright information specific to the license text and "unless otherwise noted, text on Mozilla’s site are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 Unported license, or any later version." However, section 6 of the MPL (version 1.1) itself deals with derivative works. What do you think? Ciridae (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The w:Mozilla Public License is accepted by Debian, FSF, and OSI. The 2.0 version is convertible to the GPL. If we don't accept the GFDL, we shouldn't accept the MPL, but I see no reason for us to reject either of them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)