Wikisource:Copyright discussions

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

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

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

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

Quick reference to copyright term


PD-EdictGov New Start[edit]

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

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

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)


I can't believe {{PD-Russia}} has been outdated for like 7 years, as the rules specified there were retroactively rescinded by Part 4 of the Civil Code, in effect from 2007, which specifies a 70 year protection term.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted for missing license--Jusjih (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the status of this? Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC).
Not sure they are even copyrightable in the US (extemporaneous speech not previously written down), but even if they are they would be PD -- expired in Italy before the URAA date. (Italy switched from 50pma -- in reality an effective 55pma when counting wartime extensions -- to 70pma only after the URAA date.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Italy is irrelevant here; Sacco and Vanzetti were American murderers. But I think it's pretty safe to say that however we cut it, they weren't copyrighted in the US. (Their letters were renewed, however.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Whoops, my bad. But yes, probably not copyrightable in the first place then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"Sacco and Vanzetti were murdered Americans", fixed that for you. unsigned comment by (talk) .
While I cant be certain yet, I believe these were included in The letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, edited by Marion Denman Frankfurter and Gardner Jackson Renewal R161508. I have no idea about registration/renewal of speeches from that era, but the default position in the modern era is that a speech is copyrighted once it becomes fixed, so either by the orator if they worked from prepared notes, or when the speech was transcribed. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

UN Security Council Resolutions[edit]

Hi. Some hundreds of pages from Category:UN Security Council Resolutions may be deleted. There were discussions in the past, but look at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#U.N._Security_Council_resolutions. UN says that the resolutions are copyright protected. Also pre-1989?! Best regards. -Aleator (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Moved from WS:Scriptorium. Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Three articles about Johann Christian Claudius Devaranne[edit]

I discovered the following three articles on my rounds, translated from German newspaper articles by User:Richard Bartholomew:

  1. Translation:Death Sentence after the "Russian Truncheon Insurgency"
  2. Translation:New Sources about Devaranne
  3. Translation:Wald honors its Freedom Hero Devaranne

Somewhat suspicious about the copyright status of the originals, I discovered that there were discussions between Bartholomew and User:John Vandenberg on the former's talk page. The status appears to be as follows:

  1. The first was published in 2003, and Bartholomew states that permissions were requested from the newspaper; no update was provided as to whether permission was received. This appears to be unquestionable copyvio.
  2. The second Bartholomew states was published in 1933–1935, and the author appears to have died after 1960. Again, almost certainly copyvio.
  3. The third is a bit different. Published in 1933, the author is unidentified save for initials. Could be {{PD-anon-1996}} depending on German copyright law. The newspaper holding the copyright disappeared in 1935, and Bartholomew received a note from the city archivist stating that reproduction would be acceptable. Bartholomew forwarded this note to ; whether that led to anything or not is beyond my knowledge.

I am inclined to delete the first two, unless there are objections. The third one looks like it could be hostable, but I am curious as to how it one ought to be handled. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I Am - Somebody[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The poem I Am - Somebody by William Holmes Borders, Sr., was written "in the 1950s" according to the Wikipedia article. It was popularized when Jesse Jackson recited (a slightly different version of it) on Sesame Street in the 1970s.

I'm not sure if it was ever formally published, but I'm also not sure that it counts as public domain either as an unpublished work. If Rev. Jackson's recitation is considered first publication, then it would still be under copyright, I think. Either way, there's no license on the work and I don't know what to put it as. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

As an unpublished work, it would be under copyright until 1996 + 70 years. TV and publication of a recited poem is massively complex. It could easily have been published somewhere that was renewed or not renewed or never copyrighted; it's impossible to tell without more evidence.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete This version of the poem seems to be the poem as recited by Jesse Jackson, not the original poem by Borders, Sr.
From The African American Lectionary: The late Reverend Borders, the former pastor of Wheat Street Baptist in Atlanta, Georgia, introduced this poem of racial praise on January 10, 1943; it was broadcast on "Wings Over Jordan." Between eight incremental repetitions of the refrain: "I am somebody," Reverend Borders praised past and present African American statesmen, sports figures, entertainers, writers, intellectuals, business tycoons, patriots, clergymen, et. al. Marjoleinkl (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, broadcasting something doesn't publish it. It looks like tracing the first publication with permission of the author is going to be hard. It's not improbable it's PD due to lack of notice or failure to renew, but we need that all critical first publication to check.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2016 (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)

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)

Works published by Peepang[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Deleted all as translation copyvios.--Jusjih (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
; Copyright violations
Works published by @Peepang: are apparently copyvio:
  1. Translation:Consumer protection Act, B.E. 2522 (1979) was copied from Thailand law forum website, which says "© Copyright Thailand Law Forum, All Rights Reserved".
  2. Translation:Act Promulgating the Land Code B.E. 2497 (1954) was from Thailand law forum website, which says "Copyright © 2008 Chaninat & Leeds, All Rights Reserved".
  3. Translation:Immigration Act, B.E. 2522 (1979) was copied (with slight modification at introductory text) from Thailand law forum website, which says "© Copyright Thailand Law Forum, All Rights Reserved".
  4. Translation:Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) was copied (with slight modification at introductory text) from Thailand law forum website, which says "© Copyright Thailand Law Forum, All Rights Reserved".
I nominate the above works for deletion.

--iudexvivorum (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. The original is obviously {{PD-EdictGov}}, but despite User:Peepang's assertion that these are original Wikisource translations, they clearly are not. (It is, of course, possible that these translations are not by the Thailand Law Forum either and that the copyright notice on their site does not apply.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:33, 9 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)


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)

Key To Health[edit]

When was this work published and translated?--Jusjih (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yann: you are our Gandhi expert. Do you know? — billinghurst sDrewth 09:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I don’t know exactly when it was first published, but it is certainly covered by the URAA, so not in the public domain in USA. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
URAA provision is applicable for an Indian writer when the work was published in 1923 or later and the author died before 1941. Gandhi died in 1948, so there is no applicability of URAA for his books. Gandhi started writing this book in Gujarati on 27-08-1942 while confined to Agakhan Palace at Poona. He completed writing it on 18-12-1942. It was translated into English by w:Sushila Nayyar and published in October 1948 by Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad. Scan of the 1st edition available here along with this declaration: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Hrishikes (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The URAA restored copyright to PD works in the US, so it would be more appropriate to say it applies to works like Gandhi's, not works that it didn't change the status of (left as public domain).--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete the license of CC-NC/ND is enough to not allow us to reproduce the work, irrespective of any argument around the original. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per Billinghurst's reasoning about the translation. At this point, any argument as to the status of the original is moot since the translation itself's license is not compatible. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Index:BRA Review Autumn 1977.pdf[edit]

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)

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)