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'


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)

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)

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)

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.[2] 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 OCLC 4562992all editions, 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)

*comment -- if deleting it, please move/copy it to ? it's PD as PMA-50 there. Lx 121 (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, based on the discussion above it looks like there is no reason to consider it copyvio in the US. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: deleted aready —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
No progress since 2016, Scans Nominated for DR at Commons, per copyright note on second page of scans ShakespeareFan00 (talk)
Now Deleted at Commons, And despite the comment in the DR, no one at commons thought to let people here know :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:58, 8 February 2017

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

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Kept most; documents can be kept at Commons under {{PD-UN-doc}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
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)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2017 (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).[3] 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)

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)

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

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

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

To note that there have again been contributions in this area and I have deleted these contributions and left a note. To see the previous discussions of the community on this subject matter please look at results of the search presidential prefix:Wikisource:Copyright discussionsbillinghurst sDrewth 02:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete if no one proves their licensing.--Jusjih (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Index:Lamb - Hydrodynamics, 6th edition, 1945.djvu[edit]

This is a reprint of a 1932 edition, The British Author died in 1934, would have expired in the UK in 2004, which post-dates URAA. However I am willing to accept no US renewal, if someone checks.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that US renewal doesn't matter for works published outside the USA that were still copyrighted in the source country in 1996. It would have to satisfy {{PD-1996}} in that case. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The original 6th Edition ( 1932) would have now expired in the UK in any event.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright in author's home country[edit]

I can't seem to figure out if this is listed in any of the help documents (and do we really need so many help documents on Copyright? Seriously. Not sure how we expect anyone to find any information in them.)

The basic question is: if I have a work that I know to be PD-US, but that is not PD in the home country of its' authors/translators, can it be hosted on Commons or must it be hosted locally on enWS?

Long form:

I'm interested in bringing in Max Weber's "From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology." It's on IA here: Weber died in 1920, and the translators died in 1978 and 1962. It was published for the first time -- in the US -- in 1946, with a copyright notice. A copyright renewal would have had to happen in 1974, then, which I could not find and think, therefore that this is now PD in the US (which would explain why IA has it.)

However I think it's still copyright in Germany since they use death + 70 (or maybe 50.) This would mean that since translator Hans Heinrich Gerth died in 1978, it's still copyright in Germany until 2048 (or maybe 2028.) If this is the case, where it's PD-US but not PD-Germany, can the work be hosted on Commons? Or does it have to live on enWS itself? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If it's not PD in the author's home country, then it won't be hosted on Commons, and must instead be hosted here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
If it was first published in the US, does not that make it a US work, regardless of the nationality of its translator? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure that it was first published in the US. It may have been published simultaneously, or within the same year, in West Germany, but I wouldn't know how to check. All I know is that the copyright date is 1946, and it was published in the US in 1946. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
For Commons upload, German copyright will apply for the original; for the translation, if the original is PD, then US copyright if first published in US; both US and German copyright if first published in Germany. So, that aspect needs to be checked. No non-US publication is mentioned on the title page and colophon; copyright is held by US publishers, so you can upload it in Commons under template PD-US-not renewed. For checking, you can use this page and subsequent pages. Seems that the 1946 edition was US-only and the London edition was published in 1947. Hrishikes (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


Copyright enquiry relates to the cover art and title illustration attributed to Roy Krenkel, Jr. , w:Roy Gerald Krenkel give death as 1983?

The original portion by Rice Burroughs should be fine :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The Roy Krenkel who died in 1983 (Wikipedia link is actually w:Roy Krenkel) was born in 1918. The printing of Pellucidar is 1915. I think it's a different Krenkel. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Unless the year on the Index and File at Commons (1915) for Pellucidar is wrong. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Bingo, that's it. It's the 1962 printing: [4]. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Was it renewed (in respect of the Krenkel contribution)? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
RE511880 says "Ill.: Mahlon Blaine.", new material illustration, and date 25Oct62. That's for , though. This is probably good, unless it was used in another book that was renewed or was separately renewed as copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC) mentions a map. This edition has a map. Think you can dig up an older edition?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
If it's this map: File:Pellucidar-map.gif -- then it's the original from the 1915 first edition. (Where, here, "first edition" refers to the 4-part serial printing in All-Story Weekly; the first printed edition was in 1923.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I've included that image on Page:Pellucidar.djvu/4, which you can compare to the image on the page; they're clearly the same.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
So that's not accurate; I've replaced Pellucidar-map.gif with the version from the book. No copyrightable difference I can tell.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Have you checked for renewals of Roy Krenkel Jr. or the publisher? When would 1962 material be renewable? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Index:Dostoevsky - letters and reminiscences.pdf[edit]

The Concern here is not the original, Dostoevsky being a 19th century writer, but the translation copyright, as the British Translators noted did not die until the mid 1950's.

  • Murry, John Middleton, 1889-1957 (Expires in 2027)
  • Samuel Solomonovich Koteliansky 1880-1955 (Expires in 2025).

This is claimed to be under a PD license at Commons, but gives a date of 1923.

At best I am saying this might be PD US in the US due to various publication requirements, but it's not as far as I can see public domain in the UK (given the potential translation copyright.

Perhaps someone would carefully review this?. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(Just a comment because I don't know enough about UK copyright stuff.) The scan in Commons and IA was published in London/UK in 1923. HathiTrust has a 1923 US printing from A. A. Knopf of terrible quality here; the scan is missing pages including the title page, so I can't see if it included a copyright statement. Either way it appears to have been published on both sides of the pond at the same time. (The Stanford database doesn't appear to have a renewal.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete if it is 1923 publication then it wasn't published before 1923. If it has all the copyright components and overseas published, then it is "95 years after publication date". So not until 1918. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It wasn't renewed, so if it was published within 30 days in the US, it's PD in the US. I understand proving that is pretty hard, so we may have to put it off to 2018.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
In any event I am not sure it's OK for commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete -- I think that proving publication within 30 days is pretty much an exercise in futility -- and, truthfully, not worth the effort. No transcription work has been done on this work, so I think that if some user would like to hang on to the PDF for a year we can delete it for now, then upload it again in 2018 when it's clearly out of copyright (1923+95=2018). --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: you can use your new powers to Undelete it in 2018 :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Except that I don't think it's OK for commons to host either, which will mean it gets deleted there too. (and I'm no commons admin....) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted at Commons, moved here, now it is a local problem only. Feel free to have a crack.

We probably should be looking to create a "delete in 20nn" pages as we are arriving at the years when 1923 + 95 have dawned. We may even wish to look back at what we have deleted over the years (if anyone can be bothered). My question is whether it is +95 from the date of publication, or from the end of the year of publication? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

AFAIC, a work goes in PD on the 1 January of the year following to the year in which the 95-year term started from the publication date is getting elapsed. That is, the works of the 1923 year go into the PD on the 1 January of 2019 year (not 2018), because in 2018 year the 95-year term elapses, but then going into PD is postponed until the 1 January of the next (2019) year. I think that it is also worth to be mentioned that the 2019 year is the very year, when normal annual getting works into PD is expected to be resumed in the US, arter 20-year freeze imposed by the extension of the copyright term in the US caused by Copyright Term Extension Act passed in the 1998 year. And that freeze, as I understand, lasts from 1999 to 2018 (inclusively) years, so the next—2018—year is expected to be the last year of the time interval when works still don't go into PD in the US at the beginning of the year. --Nigmont (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
That is my understanding. During 2018, we will transition all PD-1923 tags to PD-US-95 or something like that, as both tags will be true during 2018, and starting on January 1, 2019 the 95 years from publication should then apply going forward. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Exported to Canadian Wikilivres:Luceafărul--Jusjih (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
This is a translation of Luceafărul by Mihai Eminescu (1850–1889). The underlying work is fine, but the translation is listed as being by Petre Grimm (1888-1944), founder of the English department at the University of Cluj. Google Books shows a couple copies of it, the earliest in the 1964 Rumanian Review, so almost certainly not the first publication. (Romanian) says he did his thesis in 1924, so it's unlikely to be PD-1923. I know that Romania was PD-70 at the end of 1996, but I don't know if the new copyright law in that year changed the length, because the URAA might not have extended Grimm's copyright if it was PD-50 in 1996. Of course, he might have published in Germany or France or the UK instead of Romania, in which case that's moot.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, weakly, just in case. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
May be too late, but I think this is a Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, unless it was registered and renewed in the U.S. -- Romania was 50 pma on Jan 1 1996 (and their move to 70pma later in 1996 was not intended to be retroactive -- and I believe their implementations of the EU term were also not retroactive, though that is no longer relevant in Romania). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Index:BRA Review Autumn 1977.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted at commons (no OTRS permission in 30 days) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I fail to see on the evidence given how a 1977 British Publication can be PD as of 1996.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Uploader has left a note on Commons explaining that permission from the originating organsation has been sought, and an e-mail to OTRS is pending.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status of court submissions[edit]

A court submission (not transcribed here) has been challenged at Commons on the license of {{PD-USGov}}. It is one that we need to which we need to pay attention and look to how this impacts us and how such works are licensed, and whether we should even host court submissions. I am wondering whether the re-publication if undertaken has been more based on fair use, rather than anything else. If it is fair use, then that has not been considered within scope.

While the work is not here, there are other such similar works here and we need to how we may wish to manage such cases— billinghurst sDrewth 13:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Well it's clearly not {{PD-USGov}} since it's not a work of the Federal government. I've usually used {{PD-EdictGov}} on non-Supreme Court decisions since that particular license includes the phrase "judicial opinions". (Of course, {{PD-EdictGov}} comes with its own license-specific can-of-worms, but we won't mention that now.) We may want to consider a specific PD-CourtDecision tag?
From my understanding of this blog post -- -- all judicial opinions are not copyrightable in the United States, and the blog makes a good case for state statutes as well. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
It is not a court decision, it is a submission to the court. In this case legal representation of the plaintiff. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Once submitted to the court, it becomes part of the public record. Or, at least, that was my understanding of the process .... --Mukkakukaku (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
That is the point of this exercise. While it may become a public record, and available as fair use, what part of the law, or legal decision, abstains it from copyright provisions sufficiently for us to reproduce. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Is this not the same issue we had a few years ago with Green Eggs and Ham in the public record due to being read during a parliamentary debate? If I recall correctly, the consensus for that was no, a copyrighted work does not become PD in such cases (or else there was no consensus either way), so it seems to be that such would be the case here as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hino Nacional do Brasil[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept, moving translation: ns and attributing as user generated translation — billinghurst sDrewth 02:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The translations are not cited, and I could find no info about the translator. They might be original translations by the uploader, or not, but if not they are unlikely to be PD. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. The translation added by the anonymous contributor in 2005 (column "Free Translation") may very well be an original translation, since any other reference to the same lyrics on the internet is a later publication. But without the miraculous reappearance from the same IP user, I don't know how we'd ever be able to prove such a thing.
The other column ("a more literal translation") is almost the same one currently on the Norwegian Wikipedia article for this work, and its addition there significantly predates its addition here (eg see the original noWS article from 2004-12-20). We may be able to ask a contributor there for the provenance of this translation. (There's a few minor differences -- cry instead of clamor -- but otherwise appears to be the same. Other translations use significantly different structures/word choices.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Stick it into Translation ns? If we cannot find identical copy on the web it is very possible to be a community translation, as it is that type of work. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
If you think it's reasonable to assume that an otherwise unidentified translation is user-created, I'm willing to take that position also. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone volunteering to move to Translation: ns and convert the header template? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I'll take care of it when I also do National Anthem of the Soviet Union. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Letter to Editor of the Time and Life Magazine (5 October 1956)[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
article published in magazine in 1956, author died 1990s. No evidence of further release to public domain. I have not found evidence that we can reproduce without a license. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. If proved to be copyrighted by the magazine, we will check if it may be kept here or Canadial Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Gender at Azerbaijan[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
This would appear to be a copy-paste of the 2003 book "Gender in Azerbaijan" (Google Books) by Zumrud Kulizade (or something like that, transcriptions vary and I don't know Azerbaijani). No evidence of PD or a suitable license release by the author. It was published by the United Nations Population Fund, but I don't see how it could meet the criteria for Template:PD-UN. BethNaught (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete both and coyright their website — billinghurst sDrewth 01:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per above. Clearly copyvio and {{PD-UN}} doesn't apply. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Legislation-CAGov, a.k.a. documents hosted under the auspices of the Reproduction of Federal Law Order[edit]

First of all, this is not a proposal for deletion, or at least I hope not—there are a lot of works hosted here under this legislation, and it would be a shame for them to be removed. However, I notice that the order requires as a condition of reproduction that "due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced", which to my understanding does not allow for derivative works. If I am correct, then this may not be compatible with our copyright policy, and I think a discussion on this matter is warranted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Note, I am putting this forward under the assumption that this category is broader than {{PD-EdictGov}} allows for. I could be wrong about this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Interesting conceptually as we would always look to reproduce faithfully, though we would say derivatives can be generated, though derivatives can be described as a omnibus, or components, rather than accurate reproduction. I am comfortable stipulating in our licence tag that derivatives should still represent the condition of reproduction. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
That could be reasonable, though not in the spirit of our policy's "without exception and without limitation (except as explicitly allowed below)", though reproduction accuracy could be added to the list of acceptable limitations in the copyright policy.
More concerning to me is the fact that, since there is no explicit release to make derivative works, the phrasing of the reproduction order in my mind does not only restrict any such derivative works, but actually removes any implied license to create any in the first place.
An acceptable solution to my thinking would be to treat this license as purely informational, but to require that works so licensed also be licensed under an acceptable license such as {{PD-EdictGov}}, which most of them would be regardless. This approach is already used with some licenses such as {{PD-old-50}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: For the assistance of the community, could you please provide a page and anchor link to the statement that you cite. I personally don't want to get caught up in an overarching concept where a more nuanced set of statements is appropriate. The licences have developed over time, and numbers of governments approach to licensing. It is not WMF's position that should be our approach, so let us explore it appropriately. To crack the vernacular, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Here is the line from our copyright policy, describing the content we may host: "Free content is content which can be freely viewed, used, distributed, modified, and exploited by anyone, in any form, and for any purpose (including commercial exploitation) without exception and without limitation (except as explicitly allowed below)." Emphasis mine, with the explicit allowances being specifically "simple attribution" and "transmission of freedoms".
More explicitly, from our licensing compatibility page: "Non-derivative works are prohibited on Wikisource, whose license allows end-users and redistributors to make derivative works from all Wikisource content." This page also lists past discussions that establish this consensus.
I actually do want to get caught up in overarching concept: I want to make sure that all works that are hosted under any license that only allow reproduction are actually hostable. I think a nuanced set of statements could address the overarching concept sufficiently, by either clarifying that these licenses aren't non-derivative, or by taking simple and appropriate steps to ensure that such works are also hosted under a different, compatible license, or through some other means I haven't thought of. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Is this accuracy clause any different from the one in the crown wavier license which proceeded {{OGL3}}? A big ask would of course be for Wikimedia Canada to lobby for OGL implementation on Canadian Govt (Crown) works, but I don't see that happening very quickly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
{{OGL3}} explicitly allows anyone to "adapt the Information" and only requires attribution, neither of which is true of {{Legislation-CAGov}}. I don't know whether we have any works based on a comparable crown waiver that preceded {{OGL3}}, but if we do then my concern would apply to those as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Is what we do considered a derivative work? We're presenting the original text and graphics without annotation. I think an annotated work -- like Constitution Act, 1867 (annotated) -- would be derivative, but reproducing the unadulterated content appears to be in line with the spirit of the law. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
What we do is not derivative, but our copyright policy mandates that all hosted works are licensed such that anyone can create derivative works if they so wish. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Oooooh. I understand now.
So, firstly, I think anything that we're hosting that's annotated by enWS users is clearly against the original license since that's a derivative work. There's a few works like that, like the Constitution Act I linked previously. And secondly, I do believe that our own CC-By-SA 3.0 license, which allows for derivatives works, is incompatible since we'd be releasing our hosted work with a more permissive license than the original.
From my non-lawyer perspective, I think you're correct in that the license is incompatible with our own licensing. But I think we may want to confirm with a real lawyer? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I had forgotten about annotations (and user translations too) which are as you say derivative works created by WS users. Good catch. To your other comment: CC-BY-SA applies only to our contributions, and not to third-party content such as hosted works. Third-party content is available under whatever compatible license that it was already under: PD, CC, or whatever. (It would be nice if we had a real lawyer to confirm all our discussions; it would make curating WS:CV so much easier!) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Are there any further thoughts on this? I'm currently thinking to add a US-specific phrase inside {{Legislation-CAGov}} that states: "This work is in the public domain in the U.S. 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.""

I'd be curious whether it's even possible for a work to meet {{Legislation-CAGov}} but not {{PD-EdictGov}}. The former includes "consolidations of enactments of the Government of Canada" and "reasons for decisions of federally-constituted courts and administrative tribunals"; do those count as "edicts of government" under US law?


Further note: {{PD-INGov}} appears to have the same problem. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
In PD-INGov, (section 52-1-r, Indian Copyright Act) derivatives are not prohibited (except when the Govt. is selling a parallel version), condition being that a disclaimer be put up that the version is not authorised by the Govt. Hrishikes (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
52-1-r appears to be talking about translations. I think the relevant section is 52-1-q, which makes no mention of a disclaimer. But I could be wrong, it's kind of hard to read Indian Copyright Law with how it's formatted. I think {{PD-INGov}} is fine. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Section 52-1-q permits "reproduction" and "publication" of certain works; 52-1-r permits "translation" of works; neither appears to permit other modification of works. It may be fine, but I think that it's unlikley for INGov to be fine and CAGov to be not fine at the same time. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Derivatives like annotated versions are allowed for INGov material; please see the court judgements cited by Mahitgar at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Problematic work Indian Copyright Law Hrishikes (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: This article linked by Mahitgar states "The judgment or order of a court, tribunal or other judicial authority is exempted from copyright protection." This sentence itself, if it is part of Indian copyright law, is enough to make such judgments and orders hostable. In that case, if that were the wording used in {{PD-INGov}} I would gladly concede that this license is sufficient to host the judgment or order of a court, tribunal or other judicial authority. However, neither {{PD-INGov}} nor Indian copyright law appear to provide such broad copyright exemptions, nor do I see these exemptions applied to documents other than court orders and judgments. (I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just saying that I still don't see, in the linked legislation, the freedoms required by our copyright policy. —And keep in mind, that even if {{PD-INGov}} doesn't provide a suitable license, most if not all of these works are still hostable under {{PD-EdictGov}}, so I'm not suggesting the removal of works that are licensed that way either.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Not that article; please go through para 6 of this landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India and this judgement, based on the earlier one. The cases were about copyright of derivative works (annotated court judgements). The court ruled that copyright of the annotation portion belonged to the editor, and this judgement was based on 52-1-q. This interpretation of the Supreme Court is therefore applicable to any item mentioned in that section. Hrishikes (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Again, only applies to "The act of reproduction of any judgment or order of the Court, Tribunal or any other judicial authority" (quoted from para. 6), and mentions in passing "the very purpose of making these judgments in public domain". The other document says "The website [i.e. JUDIS] is easily accessible to all and the information available falls within the public domain." So here we have evidence that court judgments are explicitly PD, but not (necessarily) other works covered by 52(1)(q), nor does 52(1)(q) actually say they're PD. In fact, {{PD-INGov}} says the opposite: "This work still copyrighted".
Do you think {{PD-INGov}} could be updated to say that, based on court precedent, works covered by 52(1)(q) appear to be in the public domain, even though 52(1)(q) itself only gives allowance for reproduction and translation, and even then only under certain conditions? And that such documents aren't actually copytrighted after all? OR, that court judgments are explicitly PD based on court precedent, but other works covered by 52(1)(q) are copyrighted and subject to the restrictions of 52(1)(q), and therefore can only be hosted if an additional license (such as {{PD-EdictGov}}) applies? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: The judgement of a court is basically an interpretation of the law of the land. Here 52-1-q was explicitly cited in the judgement. The section itself does not discriminate between various items covered by it. So the items are not separable. All or none will apply here. If the court judgement gives a certain interpretation, it will apply to the whole section, because of lack of discrimination within that section. Hrishikes (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Based in the info you've provided, I've drafted a new, more accurate version of {{PD-INGov}} at User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/pd-ingov. What do you think? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Citation should be to the original judgement at . Please read pages 36-39 for understanding the viewpoint of the court. As per my understanding, the term "public domain" as used by the court is different from the sense ascribed in wikiprojects. Basically, the court says (p. 39) that the items covered in the INGov template comes under the definition of "government work" as per section 2(k) and the Government owns the first copyright to these items as per section 17(d). But because of exemption under section 52(1)(q), these are in the public domain and derivative works are permissible. This means that copyright actually does exist; the court uses the term public domain in the sense of a CC license; but permits derivatives without any restriction. Moreover, addition of commentary and other original matter to legislative acts is permitted in 52-1-q itself; the court judgement extends it to court documents. Hrishikes (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. If the term "public domain" were used in the same sense as used in our copyright policy we'd be completely in the clear. If it's used in another sense then I don't know how we are to determine if it is compatible with our policy. The works do need to be "in the public domain or released under a license compatible with the free content definition" [namely that they] "can be freely viewed, used, distributed, modified, and exploited by anyone, in any form, and for any purpose (including commercial exploitation) without exception and without limitation" with the only exceptions being simple attribution and transmission of freedoms. This is our policy. If, in your opinion, the words "public domain" used in the Supreme Court decision grant these necessary freedoms, then I am happy with the drafted replacement license tag and I think we can agree that this is sufficient grounds for hosting all of these works at Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Freedoms are not restricted, as far as I can see. Moreover, in practice, annotated versions of laws and judgements are regularly published by reputed publishers. So the template is OK, I think. Hrishikes (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Query, Does Indian law implement database rights? Some of what I was planning very long term was compilation of "Table of effects" where there wasn't one in the scans?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Original matter can be added while reproducing Indian laws as per section 52-1-q-ii of Indian Copyright Act. Hrishikes (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

National Anthem of the Soviet Union[edit]

Written 1943; last author died 2009. Like other national anthems, not automatically subject to {{PD-EdictGov}}. Russian copyright law of 1933 exempted state symbols (whether USSR symbols counted or not is another matter, of course), so was PD in Russia at URAA, but {{PD-1996}} also has other requirements; can we confirm that it meets all the requirements of {{PD-1996}} or another suitable license tag? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Kept. Only specious arguments have been advanced for deletion. If the outcome of the Commons discussion (unnecessarily started at the same time) is to delete, then we can host. However, that's looking like a SNOW keep. We don't need to spend any more time on this. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm bringing this here, because of an unusual situation that arose:-

These are PD-US based on the date:- Index:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha.djvu Index:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha (Volume 2).djvu Index:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha (Volume 3).djvu

However, other than a publisher there's no editor/translator noted for what seems to be an early 20th century translation (or update of an earlier translation). It's not clear if this was ever published in the US (other than that the source copy on seems to have been in the archive of a US organisation.)

At best it's a UK published work, with the translators/editors uncredited, which means that it may not suitable for Commons hosting.

Despite efforts having been made in respect of this work, in good faith I am therefore requesting that's it's status is reviewed cautiously ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Is the text not just the KJV? I'd be more worried about the images, myself.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Per IRC, despite what you might think the KJV has a 'freak' copyright, that owing to history doesn't expire in it's origin country w:King_James_Version#Copyright_status, This means that as such the KJV was technically still in copyright in 1996 in it's origin country, even though an awful lot of US publishers have overlooked this for years. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
It's irrelevant in the US; the KJV was published before 1923 and thus is out of copyright in the US, URAA or no. (Even the questionable Ninth Circuit decisions would push that back to only 1909.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The three volumes are now in DR's at Commons, based on an disscussion in the #wikimedia-commons IRC channel. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
According to commons:Category:King James Bible, "The UK Copyright Act 1775 established a type of perpetual copyright under which the King James Bible was allowed to be printed only by the Royal printer and by the printers of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. This provision was abolished by the Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988, but under transitional arrangements (Schedule I, section 13(1)) these printing rights do not fully expire until 2039. However, images of King James bible pages are allowed on Commons since electronic copies do not infringe this printing right."
In that case, the files are ok on Commons, and they are trivially ok in the US (pre-1923) so they are okay here too. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Which Commons DR came to that conclusion, or was it from higher up? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
In any event the claim suggests that until 2039, it is (potentially) copyright in it's origin country, which means it can't necessarily be hosted

at Commons, if you are applying the strictest interpretation of Commons policy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind simple issues being brought up here, but if you want to interpret fine details of Commons policy, go to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The other issue as raised in the Commons DR, concerns the added artwork, which although (potentially) PD-US given a 1911 date, aren't necessarily PD elsewhere, given that the artists aren't credited (elsewhere the criteria has been "reasonable research" to determine them.). If the longest term is applied, given that this is clearly a UK published edition initally, and it's not been determined when US publication occured, then it's not necessarily safe to assume the artwork is public domain until at least 120 years after it was created (which nominally given the 1911 publication date, is 2031).

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:King James Bible which would affect more than just the above mentioned indexs.
At the very least, KJV stuff can't be edited by UK contributors notwithstanding any efforts made in good faith previously. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
As Beleg Tâl pointed out, the law doesn't restrict electronic publishing the KJV, and even if it were illegal, that's between an editor and their laws; they are more than welcome to edit it under our rules.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the regular approach to push boundaries on copyright violations. It seems that you are looking for reasons to delete, and some purity of site. Put your best case forward and leave it at that. If there is a problem with these files we will bring them here. They are are pre-1923, and out of copyright outside of the UK. Symbol keep vote.svg Keepbillinghurst sDrewth 02:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Treaty between Tibet and Mongolia (1913)[edit]

This was published at least in 1924 in Tibet: Past and Present by Author:Charles Alfred Bell who died in 1945. This is in PD, at least in PD-India, since Charles Bell was an official of British India. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a different translation than the one that was deleted. Was this translation PD in 1996 in the country in which it was first published? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
To try and answer my own question: it looks like this translation was first published in India, and India was (and is) a 60 PMA country, so the translation would not have become PD in India until 2005. Because it was copyrighted in 1996, the URAA would have made it copyright in the USA until 1945 + 95 = 2040. So unfortunately, unless I am misunderstanding something here, we won't be able to host this translation either for a good while yet. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The book by Bell was published in 1924 originally (Tibet, past & present by Charles Alfred Bell( Book ) 83 editions published between 1924 and 2012 in 5 languages and held by 753 WorldCat member libraries worldwide, see also [5]) therefore, it is PD-India and PD-UKGov. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Bell died in 1945, so his books, published in India, were copyrighted upto 2005, irrespective of publication year. Therefore, this work is copyrighted in USA and not hostable here. Hrishikes (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok for Bell, BUT, he cites a source With The Russians In Mongolia by Perry-ayscough , H.g.c. And Otter-barry, R.b., published in 1914, page 10 to 13 : [6]. This is in PD. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that book is hostable in Commons, having simultaneous pre-1923 US publication. The proper way would be to upload the whole book, instead of a few pages, and then proofread-cum-transclude. Hrishikes (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I found this book here [7]. I do not know how to transfer it. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'll take care of it. Hrishikes (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Rédacteur Tibet: c:File:With the Russians in Mongolia.djvu -- Hrishikes (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Impressively fast @Hrishikes:. Is it possible to copy and paste the translation of Treaty between Tibet and Mongolia (1913)? The text has an importance in its own. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Rédacteur Tibet: -- Done: With the Russians in Mongolia/Mongol-Tibetan Treaty. Although the book has it as a part of the Introduction, it is actually a piece between Introduction and Chapter 1. Hrishikes (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Excellent! Many Thanks. As it is a translation that differs from Treaty between Tibet and Mongolia (1913), I propose to have this page entitled With the Russians in Mongolia/Mongol-Tibetan Treaty linked to w:Treaty of friendship and alliance between the Government of Mongolia and Tibet. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
India was 50 pma until 1991 when they non-retroactively went to 60 pma. Doesn't necessarily change this one, although there have been some arguments that a drafting error in the law may have meant that existing works were not extended (although that was the intent of the 1991 change). The U.S. term is 95 years from publication, not death, so a 1924 publication should become PD in 2020 (if it was indeed restored by the URAA). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Can you please elaborate on the drafting error? The original intent of the 1992 amendment was to extend copyright of Tagore's works (see here) and copyright of Tagore's works was indeed extended by 10 years (that's why his post-1923 works are not allowed here), so was the case with other works then under copyright. Therefore, can u pse elaborate about how copyright of Bell's book was not extended due to drafting error? Hrishikes (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: I did find this editorial (by a former judge) on the matter. I think the argument is that the 1957 law, in its transition section at the end, said that the *scope* of existing copyrights was changed by the new law, but the *term* of existing works would still be determined by the previous law. That law really only changed the term of photographs (went from 50 years from creation to 50 years from publication), and that section may have meant that existing photographs should still have a term based on creation. The 1956 UK copyright act made a similar change, but had a section which explicitly stated that the publication-based term of photographs is only for photographs created after the new law came in force, i.e. earlier photographs were still based on year of creation (which of course the EU retroactive changes made irrelevant in 1996). So, the India transitional section may have been a more subtle way of doing that same thing, saying that photographs created before 1958 are still based on year of creation, not publication. When the law was modified in December 1991 (by a presidential ordinance, see (here) and confirmed by a law once parliament reconvened (here, retroactive to the date of the ordinance), it simply said that the 1957 law was modified by replacing "fifty years" with "sixty years". So, the argument would be that since article 79 was not changed by the 1991/1992 amendments, and that Tagore's works were created before 1958, then his copyright term is still 50pma because that was the term under the earlier law. The editorial does cite a 1977 decision where a technicality of the earlier 1914 law (reversion of rights from an assignee to heirs at 25pma for the remaining 25 years of the term) was held to be still valid after the 1957 law, based on that clause, so the effect of the 1957 law does seem more clear. But I don't think there has been an explicit ruling after the 1991/1992 change, i.e. a ruling that the term was not extended despite the clear intention to do so, so I would be hesitant to follow that logic unless we get a court ruling to that effect. But if true, that would have some effect on the URAA restorations -- the line would be 1946 not 1941. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Many thanks for this great exposition. @Mahitgar, @Bodhisattwa: please take note. Hrishikes (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Halkin Sesi (People's Voice) Party Program[edit]

People's Voice Party is a defunct Turkish political party. Its program can be found on Wayback: Turkish, Google Translate. This text is a fluent English translation of the program; no attribution is given to any translator, if it is not the uploader themself. In any case, I can see nowhere where the original text could have been appropriately licensed, but because I don't know Turkish, and Google Translate can hideously mangle stuff, I wanted to check. BethNaught (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Deletebillinghurst sDrewth 15:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sokoli Tomari Iccha[edit]

Tagged a while ago by Jayantanth (talkcontribs), presumably as the linked source does not have a free licence. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I have not seen this book] physically ie Grace and Mercy in Her Wild Hair : Selected Poems to the Mother Goddess 2nd Edition

by Ramprasad Sen (Author).But the traslalator is Clinton Seely (Translator), Leonard Nathan (Translator), Andrew Schelling (Foreword). I presume that translation is copyvio. Jayantanth (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteBeleg Tâl (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Jayantanth: This discussion requires more data. Original is not by Ramprasad Sen, but by Narachandra Ray, see alternate translation here. So the translation present here is not from Nathan and Seely's book. The song is present in section 18 and section 22 of Sri Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita, several English translations of that work exist. Online source of the version here is this blog, which also contains another translation below it, taken from chapter 43 of The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna (1942), a translation of the Kathamrita by Swami Nikhilananda. So the first version (the one present here) is possibly from another translation of the Kathamrita. The 1907 translation of Kathamrita by Swami Abhedananda, present here as Index:The Gospel of Râmakrishna.djvu is an abridged version, and I could not locate this song in the work. So, the work's copyright status can be determined only by getting more data. Till then, it is suspect copyvio. Hrishikes (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)