Wikisource:Copyright discussions

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Copyright discussions
This page hosts discussions on works that may violate Wikisource's copyright policy. All arguments should be based entirely on U.S. copyright law. 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'


Philosophical Writings: Translators modern unpublished translation, or possible gifted translation[edit]

This work was provided in 2010 by an IP address. The author is a known modern translator [1] though the source is unknown, and unproven that the translation has been published, and if published whether it is in the public domain, or not.

It is possible that the translation has been done and gifted to the web. I can see that the person has edited at Wikipedia and from an IP address. If we do wish to determine that is the case and determine to retain the work, then I would suggest that we move the work to the Translation namespace, and de-identify the author. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Since Larrieu is a published author, and the uploader is anonymous, I would assume copyvio over gifted translation. I would suggest reaching out to the translator, but he died in 2015. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Larrieu made several edits to Wikipedia in 2006, and the IP address geolocates to roughly the same area that the IP address that added the text here does, albeit from a different ISP (Verizon vs. Cox). In their edits on Wikipedia they exhibit a level of competence with wiki editing roughly commensurate with the text added here. They also expressed interest in finding online verified copies of certain old texts, in response to which a Wikipedia editor referred them to Wikisource!
Based on this I am actually personally convinced the text was added by Larrieu himself, and that he intended it to be freely available.
However, despite this conviction, I don't think we can keep this work: simply because the necessary formalities were not observed. We don't know that it was Larrieu that added it, and we don't know that they understood the licensing consequences; because there is no OTRS ticket confirming the identity and intent, and the added text did not contain explicit copyright tags. So, reluctantly, I think we need to delete this.
We could reach out to Larrieu's heirs, but the odds of them knowing anything about his wiki activities are pretty poor. --Xover (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Suggest we move it to Translation: namespace and make appropriate notes on talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe the participants so far are in disagreement over how to best handle this issue due to the uncertainties involved (I don't believe a clear-cut right—wrong answer is obtainable with the available information). I would therefore request that other community members (the more the better!) chime in with their opinion so that we can more accurately gauge the community's consensus on how to handle this. --Xover (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is still Symbol delete vote.svg Delete: assume copyvio over gifted translation without evidence to the contrary —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree and thus also Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. But I take billinghurst's above proposal of "move to Translation:" as an implicit {{vk}}. Since the issue is not clearly settleable on the facts, I think we need wider input to determine our course of action. --Xover (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep 2010! They met our requirements at the time, and we didn't have a translation: ns back then. There is suitable evidence that the author did edit, and with this translation left their name on the work appropriately to our style. The text is not findable on the web, so it is unlikely to be a copy and paste job. If anyone had done that in the Translation ns: today, then no one would be batting an eyelid about keep it unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)‎.
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per billinghurst --Zyephyrus (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Index:Civil Rights Movement EL Text.pdf[edit]

2014 work that has been sitting tagged as having insufficient licensing information since 2016. The issue was raised with the uploader at the time, and an alleged email from the author was provided on their talk page, but the OTRS procedure was not apparently followed. The work as such is clearly in copyright, both by the author and by other contributors (cover design etc.), so the question is whether we consider the (unverified) emailed statement on the contributor's talk page sufficient.

e-mail from John Duley to Willl Loew-Blosser 10/9/2014

"Will: Thanks so much for following up on this. The answer to your two questions at the end of your email is yes--​ I would be pleased to have it widely circulated so do not intend to copyright it and would be willing to have it published as you suggest. John"

e-mail to John Duley from Will Loew-Blosser 10/4/2014

"Hi John,

Leslie and I have were very pleased to learn so much of East Lansing history from your monograph. As we mentioned at breakfast I’m looking into putting your monograph entitled "The Civil Rights Movement in East Lansing and Edgewood Village” onto wikipedia. There is a section of wikipedia called wikiSource that holds original works that may be then used in the encyclopedia articles as a source material.


The first question is about copyright. WikiSource does not accept copyrighted works. You do not have a copyright notice on the title page but there is no explicit permission to reproduce or republish either.

My view is that iff we were to accept this as a valid {{CC0}} {{PD-author-release}} dedication, which we would then move to Commons, the chances of it avoiding deletion there would be slim. We need proper verification through OTRS for these cases, not least in order to ensure that the copyright owner understands all the consequences of PD dedication or free licensing. --Xover (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I think that the release into PD is clear, and the work could be tagged {{PD-author-release}}. I do not think {{CC0}} can be used because the copyright holder did not explicitly link the work to the Creative Commons Zero deed and legal document. I would perhaps have accepted the notice on the talk page if the editor who posted the notice was themselves the copyright holder. However this is not the case and I am inclined to disallow it without proper OTRS. Is it at all possible to contact Duley directly? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    In 2014 the situation was that The author is in his late 90's, quite poor health, and has stopped using e-mail. so I hold that unlikely. And if no followup was forthcoming in 2016, I would tend to think that for internet people to now intrude on an old man with copyright questions would border on being immoral. At least my take is that we have to decide this issue based on the information we already have. --Xover (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I also understand it as a clear release into the public domain. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Jan Kameníček: If this document was tagged {{PD-author-release}} it would be eligible to be moved to Commons. Pragmatically, how do you rate its chances of surviving a deletion discussion there? --Xover (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Xover: I have almost no experience with deletion discussions there, but if we are afraid that it will not survive there for some reasons, we can keep it here. Or, if we move it and they decide they do not want it, we can move it back here then. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Jan.Kamenicek: The question was meant to probe the logic behind your conclusion, specifically in terms of the standard of evidence we apply. If we are confident that the available evidence is sufficient to conclude it has been released into the public domain, then we should also be confident that it will survive a deletion discussion at Commons. Since I am not confident that is the case absent confirmation through the OTRS process (and neither is Beleg Tâl based on their comment above), I wanted to check whether you deliberately wanted to apply a different (lower) standard of evidence or whether there was some confusion behind it.
    In practice, in these circumstances, if the consensus is to keep this as {{PD-author-release}}, I would not personally transfer this to Commons because I believe it would be against policy there and would be deleted. But another user very well might move it to Commons at any time, unless we used {{do not move to Commons}} to mark it to keep local. But if we do that we are essentially saying that we do not believe this is properly licensed (i.e. that our {{PD-author-release}} tag is a lie). This is unlike the typical situations where a file is PD in the US but not in its home country: in that case there is a genuine difference in policy between Commons and enWS. In the case at hand the policy is ostensibly the same on enWS and Commons, but we are (I suspect) applying a different standard of evidence.
    And if we are doing that then we should be very conscious and clear about that fact. It sets precedent for future such cases, and it impacts the risk to our reusers, so it is something we should approach with deliberation and eyes open. --Xover (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    Well, neither our nor Commons discussions are legally binding, they are in fact both just lay opinions and it is no wonder that our lay opinion can be different from their lay opinion. As written above, I have almost zero experience with these discussions in Commons, but often heard others saying that they are sometimes trying to be more Catholic than the Pope... So by not moving it we are not saying that we are lying about the license, we are simply saying that our lay opinions about some border cases are different than theirs. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    Ah. Thanks! --Xover (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
yeah, i would keep it as PD-author-release, here. commons would view failure to follow OTRS as a deletion rationale. i.e. [2]; [3]; [4]. Slowking4Rama's revenge 16:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing[edit]

2013 statement issued by multiple parties on OA publishing, each holding copyright in the collective work. The statement is published at under the terms set forth in the Terms of Use for DASH Repository. These include -NC and -ND restrictions, and so are not compatible with our copyright policy. --Xover (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep pending further investigation. The fact that the work was posted in DASH does not mean that DASH holds the copyright to the work. Indeed, the work has appeared in multiple locations online which purport to apply different policies: for example, at this site which states that all content is CC-BY 3.0 unless otherwise stated. Different repositories have different copyright policies, but only the actual copyright holder’s views (usually meaning, those of the author or authors) govern. I agree that it most likely makes sense to view the statement as a work of joint authorship by the conference participants (rather than the work of an individual author), although the document does not actually so state. More information about authorship and the provenance of the work seems to be needed here. Tarmstro99 17:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    Suber also states that he is not an official spokesman for this document, so his claim of CC-BY is no more credible than the DASH claim to NC and ND restrictions. If any organization owned the copyright it would be HHMI, who convened the meeting and invited the participants. However, as the text itself states, the authors contributed as individuals rather than as representatives of their organization, so joint copyright seems to be the correct assumption. Because of this, in order for us to keep the text, it will be necessary to find an explicit release issued by all contributing authors. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Tarmstro99: If we agree that all the actual licenses provided in the different repos and sites in which this appears cannot be trusted, then we need to examine the known facts to determine its status for ourselves. Do any of the observable facts support a free license or a copyright exemption (public domain)? If not, the default state is that it is protected by copyright owned by its authors. --Xover (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    it is not a matter of trust, it is a matter of standard terms that are added to all content. you should not imagine that organizations will make copyright determinations for you, they will present a "no known copyright" or "for educational use" or NC, as a fallback. we have seen some progress with our partners, but legal departments remain recalcitrant. Slowking4Rama's revenge 13:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
    An observation..."find an explicit release" (per Beleg Tal) and "examine the known facts" (per Xover) seem to me to be mere restatement of what Tarnstrom originally suggested, i.e. "further investigation." -Pete (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Peteforsyth: Not quite. I'm saying that the default assumption for all works are that they are protected by copyright. Tarmstro's argument that we cannot trust the copyright statement provided by the hosting repository (by pointing at a different statement in a different repository) simply means that we have no credible indications to support a deviation from the default. The available facts are that it is a work of joint authorship by the conference participants, who hold copyright in the joint work, and who failed to actually license this particular work in line with the goals of the statement itself (the irony). Unless someone can unearth facts that credibly support compatible licensing, this is clearly copyvio. --Xover (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep pending further investigation, to which I'm happy to contribute. Per what @Tarmstro99: says, I believe the original license was one acceptable to Wikisource, and it may be that the statement has been republished in other places which apply licenses that are not. I will see what more I can learn and report back. -Pete (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks. My own research did not suggest any likelihood of finding information credibly supporting compatible licensing, but I am very grateful for all contributions towards the best possible determination we can achieve. --Xover (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For what it's worth, version 3 of the CC licenses launched in 2007, several years after the publication of this statement. Version 3 is the first version compatible with Wikimedia TOU. -Pete (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Peteforsyth: Have you been able to unearth any further information on this? --Xover (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Xover: Thanks for the ping. I'm sorry, I realized that I had this document confused with a related one, and got stuck. Reviewing it again now, I do know several of the signers, and I will reach out to them. If you feel it should be deleted in the meantime, I don't object, assuming that an affirmative outcome would mean it could be restored. Or, if you're OK with waiting a couple-few weeks to see what responses I get, that's cool too. Sorry for the delay. -Pete (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Peteforsyth: It's been sitting open since September last year: a few more weeks makes no difference. Please keep in mind though, that we'll need something more than just one or more of the co-authors saying they think that X is the case. If we can't find anything solid that's been published, we'll need the full OTRS dance for all the co-authors (which is a pretty tall order 7 years after the fact). --Xover (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Xover: Yes, I fully understand that -- I'm looking for either (a) clarification that there is a provable compatible copyright license or release from 2003 that we've somehow overlooked, or (b) somebody from that group organizes a poll of all authors and can generate a new license. (I don't know whether all signers were authors or not...possible that the number of authors is lower than it appears, so I wouldn't totally rule that out as a possibility.) I realize it's a tall order, but because of the irony you acknowledge, I think it's worth the effort. Thanks, -Pete (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    I've had a helpful reply already, though no "quick fix." Still looking into it. -Pete (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
    Just a small update for now -- emails are underway, my inquiries have been redirected to more appropriate recipients twice now, and I hope for a definitive answer by the end of this week. Peter Suber did confirm to me that the initial publication (as far as he knows) was on his personal website, predating the DASH publication. Also, as far as he knows, the NC and ND provisions of DASH would apply only to materials subject to Harvard's open access policy, which as far as he knows would not cover this document. So it would seem that the current status is "unclear, perhaps no general license was ever formally applied" rather than CC-BY-NC-ND. Again, hope to have clear affirmation of a general license, or at least affirmation of the status quo, in short order. -Pete (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    Small development, and @Xover: you may be interested in this part: The leader of the institution representing the original lead author has stated their understanding is that under U.S. copyright law any one copyright holder may assert a non-exclusive license (like CC BY) for a work. That position is spelled out in some detail here. (Hat tip @Bluerasberry:.) They have not yet made that formal assertion of CC BY (which I expect will entail some internal deliberation) but that is the theory they will be working under. -Pete (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Peteforsyth: Far be it for me to argue with the Berkman Center, but I am not unreservedly willing to buy that theory for this purpose.
    An "undivided ownership share" is a concept related to title to land and ownership of real property, where selling your part or letting someone else use it does not deprive the other sharers of their economic benefit from the land (and when you let someone else use it you must account to the other sharers for the profits). In a traditional copyright situation a similar mechanism applies: each joint author may license the work and derive economic benefits from it, and it does not deprive the other sharers of their benefits beyond that implied by multiple parties owning a share to begin with. But when we are talking about intangible property (digital intellectual property, where you can make perfect replicas at effectively zero marginal cost) a copyleft-style license has the same practical effect as an exclusive license: it deprives the other sharers (authors) of the potential for economic benefit. Think of it as analogous to trespass to chattels or even conversion, if you like. And copyright is primarily an economic right (the right to commercially exploit, with some moral rights tacked on to various degrees in various jurisdictions).
    In fact, I believe (but don't hold me to it) that in the UK (and probably other Common law jurisdictions, but I haven't checked) such ownership constructions are held to legally create a trust, regardless of whether you take other affirmative steps to create or act like one, for the specific purpose of imposing a duty for the trustees to always act in the best interests of the beneficiaries. I believe the standard example is the house you own jointly with your spouse: for legal purposes both of you have the roles as trustee and beneficiary and neither of you can unilaterally sell the house (as a trustee) unless it is in the best interest of the other (as beneficiary).
    But the above is strictly speaking just a hypothetical right now. We'll have to assess the actual facts if and when they are presented. I would be much much more comfortable with an assertion from a trustworthy source that all the joint authors had agreed to the licence. And what counts as a trustworthy source for this purpose would be either directly from each author (like a joint statement), or some inherently trustworthy institution (roughly by the same assessment as a "reliable source"-type assessment on enwp), or something similar. The same claim from just one of the authors I would be less comfortable accepting (no offence to Suber, but I don't know him from Adam and there are far far fewer checks and balances in place for individuals then there are for organisations, and much greater incentives to misunderstand, misrepresent, or skimp on due diligence).
    PS. Not trying to draw any bright line here, by the way. I'm just outlining my thinking and understanding now so that it's clear going in, rather than pop up like a moving goal post after the fact. The actual facts and intervening arguments may alter my thinking significantly before the end.
    PPS. I just noticed that Diane Cabell was one of the signatories of this, while she was a Director at the Berkman Center, and until 2014 she was at Creative Commons. If she's not one of the people you're talking to it might be worthwhile to reach out. I imagine she'll see the problem immediately, and identify potential solutions. And, speaking only for myself, she is someone I would be extremely hesitant to argue a legal question with (appearances to the contrary aside, I don't actually enjoy looking like a blithering idiot). :-) --Xover (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


  • I see two issues here - one is the general case of whether one copyright holder has the authority to issue licenses when there is a group of equal stakeholders. I think the answer is yes, and I think that the above legal explanation from DMLP / Berkman / Harvard confirms any one copyright holder has the right to issue non-exclusive licenses of any sort, and I think that Xover is taking a minority position in opposition to that by saying that individual copyright holders in a group cannot issue CC licenses without unanimous group permission. Responding to group copyright does seem like a common situation in the Wikimedia space, and we should have clarity on how to respond, and I am unaware of any published on-wiki guidance for addressing this. Xover, positions aside, are you aware of any established wiki guideline on how to manage copyright from groups? Is this idea of requesting permission from everyone in a group documented somewhere? If not, we should write something to clarify, right? Should we go to Commons Pump Copyright, or what would you propose?
The other issue is this particular case. I see this case as unique because this particular document is foundational to Wikipedia's copyright licensing practices. The copyright license for this document is the document itself. The document itself defines what a free and open license is, and it does this in the modern sense of understanding this, and the signatories are all understood to be the founding experts who defined the concept of the free and open license for creative media including the output of Creative Commons. The correct copyright license for this document is this document itself. There are a lot of signatories, and while we have not talked to all of them, the ones we have talked to obviously support free and open media including for this document. Noawadays the Creative Commons licenses themselves have Creative Commons licenses upon them, but 20 years ago when the Bethesda Statement came out, the explicit language of this document calling for free and open media everywhere was self explanatory enough for it to freely go into circulation with many people taking action with the understanding that they should republish, translate, and remix this document without anyone even imagining that the text of the document would not apply to the document itself. To question the license of the document now is to apply a contemporary reimagining into a time and situation where obviously subject matter experts of the time did not feel a need to comment. I am comfortable treating this document uniquely and recognizing its open license as a special case, even while for other cases we seek other opinions about the general case in Wikipedia for how to respond to shared licenses.
Xover, can you make a proposal of how to proceed? Pete and I have talked with a few people already. Among all the signatories, is Diane Cabell really the person whose authority you would accept, even after we already have a license from the copyright holder which hosted the meeting which produced this document? I support getting this in order, but I want to avoid a situation where the asking proceeds indefinitely without an identified end. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: I get the feeling you are ascribing to me positions and stances that I do not actually hold. But I am out of time to respond in depth just now, so I'll just quickly address a couple of key points.
Regarding the Cyberlaw guidance on joint authorship, they do not actually address this situation directly. They have certain implicit expectations about the context in which their advice will apply, and copyleft deliberately subverts those expectations. It may still be valid, but we cannot just assume that it applies.
Regarding we already have a license from the copyright holder which hosted the meeting which produced this document, this is the first I'm hearing about this. Details?
Regarding The correct copyright license for this document is this document itself… Keep in mind that if we accept the document itself as its own license, it cannot be hosted here for at least two reasons: 1) unlike the CC licenses, it is not actually an approved license (and unlikely to ever be so, due to…), 2) the terms of that license are incompatible with our licensing policy since it imposes -NC style limitations on reuse. Open access and copyleft are related and overlapping, but their interests are not identical; and absent clear licensing we cannot just assume that all the signatories would agree to use the terms in our particular copyleft licenses. For the same reason you should not assume that I would license my open source software under the GPL: I have philosophical objections to some of its terms even though I for the most part agree with its goals. --Xover (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: Excuse me me for attributing any position to you - there never was a reason for me to do that, and if I misstated something then it was my own lack of understanding.
  1. About the license - yes, we have a license statement for this particular from someone at Howard Hughes Medical Institute. This is a recent development since the start of this conversation. They say CC-By. Is there a Wikisource OTRS process, or do you use the Commons OTRS process here? We could tag OTRS permission on the talk page of the document, assuming that you would recognize a representative of that org as suitable permission.
  2. I disagree with the claim that copyright licenses need advance approval for acceptance into the Wikimedia platform. We have a standard for compliance, Commons:Commons:Licensing, but anyone can meet that standard with the license of their choice without pre-approval. I recognize that anything uploaded should meet that standard, but I would not agree with dismissing by default a license which lacks pre-approval. Wikimedia projects have always had tolerance of a lot of weird homebrew licenses at Commons:Category:License tags. I would support you or anyone else contesting a license, if it comes to that, but maybe having the above described permission is sufficient.
  3. This might be a tangent if the above described permission is sufficient, but I do not see the NC restrictions in the Bethesda statement. I see no restrictions except attribution of copyright holder. I agree that the text is weird in places, but to me, the Bethesda statement seems CC-By interoperable. If it ever happened that we had Bethesda-licensed text to import, then that seems fine to me.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: Still short of time but trying to squeeze in some responses in the interest of not stalling progress. Apologies.
On OTRS, so far as I know we don't even have a separate queue in OTRS, and definitely not our own procedure. But I have to admit to treating OTRS as a bit of a black box so I may not be entirely up to date on that.
On the restrictions in the document… First I think it is important to stress that this isn't actually a copyright license (at best it is an indication of intent), so the issue is rather hypothetical. But with that caveat, the restriction is in the first section or thereabouts where they place a limit on "printing out a reasonable number of copies for personal use" (an entirely reasonable limitation when talking about open access to research and journal articles). I haven't checked in detail what else is there, so this is just an example of why we cannot simply assume that the interests of people concerned mainly with open access will always align 100% with those concerned mainly with copyleft and free culture. They may, but it's not certain and it may vary from case to case.
On the license statement from Howard Hughes Medical… That's great news! I am, personally, not immediately convinced that's sufficient, for the reasons outlined previously, but that's something concrete and it is not at all unlikely that the community will consider that sufficient to retain this document here (I tend to the more conservative end of the spectrum on these issues). At the very least if we make it contingent on the outcome of some kind of process to clarify this issue in general. Preferably involving WMF Legal, or at least people like Clindberg or Michael Maggs over on Commons, but something with broader attention and input than an individual copyright discussion on enWS. As you say, the question isn't specific to Wikisource; and it would eliminate a lot of uncertainty and needless back and forth to have specific guidance either way on these cases. As a practical matter, enWS tends to rely rather heavily on the guidance on Commons for copyright issues (modulo the direct differences in the respective copyright polices). --Xover (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry, @Peteforsyth: I have still not found the time to really dig into this issue. But I have managed two things: 1) thinking at it from a few different perspectives, and 2) a superficial search for any legal precedent or case law that address this situation directly.
To take the latter first… I have found absolutely zilch in any of the sources I have access to that actually addresses this issue. I feel this must be my failure and that surely this must be an issue that has cropped up somewhere at some point, but finding it would take someone more qualified than me (hence my desire to get WMF Legal on the case). Which means that my analysis above is a prima facie novel legal interpretation; and novel interpretation from some random Internet person (even if that person happens to be myself) is not a good basis for decisions on legal issues. So, with my community member hat on I'm going to change my !vote to neutral on this.
Which brings me to the #1 mentioned initially. Putting my admin hat on and trying to look at this from a "how do we progress this towards a resolution" perspective, my assessment is that the community has not shown itself willing to accept the document itself as its own license (and keep in mind the pitfall I sketched previously for that) , but… based on previous discussions I hold it very likely that they would accept your proposed OTRS license statement from one of the co-authors' institution. The devil is in the details (which institution, under what circumstances, what are they actually saying, etc.) but my guess is that the general principle is one the community would consider sufficient.
So, absent other input, my suggested way forward is that you proceed to get OTRS permission as you have been planning. Once that is in place we make a new subsection of this discussion with a brief summary (so people don't have to wade through this mess), and ping previous participants. If over a week or two we either get no feedback, or a normal consensus assessment of what !votes we do get supports keep, I close this thread as keep. (I propose a short-circuit in there because it's really hard to get sufficient numbers of participants to properly assess consensus in these complicated threads).
Once we've landed this specific case I would like to try to get some guidance on the general issue. First by trying get WMF Legal to look at it, and failing that (or if their statement on it is not clear cut), in a discussion on the Commons `pump. The goal of the latter would, to my mind, be to establish clear guidance, and not primarily the legal issues. And I would very much appreciate your involvement in that effort, if for no other reason then at least to make sure more perspectives are reflected in the formulation of the issue.
Thoughts? Does that sound like a sensible approach? --Xover (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree, the argument about "this document is its own license" is odd. I will table that one.
  • I started a discussion at the Commons village pump some time ago and it has answers. See commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/08#Multiple_copyright_holders;_one_person_grants_CC_license. My read on consensus here is that any one copyright holder can apply CC licenses without permission from other copyright holders. Please look that over and tell me the extent to which you think my phrasing and question apply to this case.
  • About expert opinions and precedent - We have a few opinions from Commons. That is a start. I started to compile Commons:Commons:Joint authorship. Would you please post any comment to the talk page there about the extent to which that essay addresses this issue? My view on Commons noticeboards and WMF legal is that they will not draft text, but they will respond to drafts. People are more likely to respond as a proposal is more developed. I did that first draft and got a little response. We could escalate this if need be, but my feeling is that WMF will not respond until and unless there is some community development. I agree with you - either Creative Commons or Wikimedia Commons past discussions should have raised and addressed this issue many times. I have been unable to find prior documentation and discussion. I have not looked extensively, but I think that at least that essay page I drafted is the first guideline-style documentation anyone has made on wiki. If anything exists off-wiki, maybe I have not found it, and I have not searched wiki discussions at all.
  • The permission we have is from a person who was hosting the Bethesda conference. I do not want to send this to OTRS prematurely, but yes, my view of their statement is that they understand CC licenses and said they right now apply one to this document. If you / consensus can accept that, then I can either send it into OTRS or we can discuss more details if there is anything ambiguous.
All of this is conversation trying to get to a resolution. What do you think of all this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: (and courtesy CC to Pete) Meh. I wish I'd been aware of that discussion when it happened. I disagree with your assessment that that discussion demonstrates consensus that any one copyright holder can apply CC licenses without permission from other copyright holders: of the four people participating, Asclepias and King of Hearts jump straight to the same concern I outlined above (it was apparently not so novel after all), and Brainulator9 expressed a different but related concern, so only Jeff G. unequivocally supported that position.
On that basis I would say we definitely need to pursue a general resolution to this issue, including both what (if any) position WMF Legal takes and a community-anchored guideline for applying it. And I think that process properly belongs on Commons: we don't have the capacity or expertise, and in most cases we will be working based on files hosted on Commons anyway. In the mean time I'm in no rush to close this discussion (beyond providing progress and resolution to those who care about its outcome specifically), so my proposal is to just leave it open until we have some actual guidance to base a close on. --Xover (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep consistent with established Commons and OTRS practices of accepting licenses from anyone who we can show has a right to issue them. It's a little late to do otherwise and require licenses from all copyright holders, heirs, successors, and assigns; doing so without input from WMF Legal would be reckless and foolhardy, would waste much volunteer time, and could bring accusations of "copyright paranoia" and being "more Catholic than the Pope". Doing so retroactively could cripple the movement. @Xover: Thanks for the mention.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Index:Tumors of the pituitary gland.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
The copyright situation for this work is not entirely clear, and there are factors that weigh in favour of both PD-USGov and the opposite. There is also no clear consensus among those commenting on how to weight the available evidence. However, there is a slight numerical advantage to the keep votes (2 out of 3 total, so extremely weak) and the parallel deletion discussion on Commons was also closed as keep (on similarly flimsy grounds). Based on that I am going to close this as a technical "keep", but note that it is more of a "no consensus to delete" and anyone that on reflection disagrees should feel free to open a new discussion about this work.

1998 work and author is still alive. I do not see that we can call this {{PD-USGov}} and I don't see that there is any legitimate licensing that would allow us to retain this work.

Note that I have started the pairing conversation at WikimediaCommons. @Rajasekhar1961: uploader. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

w:Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (established in 1862) published series of books of good teaching value for medical persons. The Institution is closed in 2011. Some of their publications are available in Archives under Public domain licence. They are published by USGovernment. Hence may be considered as {{PD-USGov}} to be used in Wikisource. I am interested in this work, and would like to upload the other books in the series, if it is acceptable to Wikimedia foundation.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology is the publisher, but not the author. The author is not an agent of the US government and did not write this volume while working for the government. An author retains rights to their work unless the author releases them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Hang on… This scan was uploaded to IA by an archivist at the National Institutes of Health Libraries and is included both in the NIH Library collection and the Federal Collections collection at IA (and the NIH links to it and a copy on Google Books from their catalog). The work contains no independent copyright statement (which is not required by the copyright act but is common practice in publishing all the same, when copyright applies). The series has been published in multiple editions (at least three that I've found), all of which by AFIP, but with different editors. The edition preceding this one has multiple scans fully available on HathiTrust (who are notoriously even more Catholic than Commons on copyright). All of which strongly suggests that this is a product of the AFIP that just happened to be produced as a work-for-hire: that is, the "author" is listed for academic credit, not copyright purposes. The history of the work, which is given in a preface, also describes it as a product of the AFIP, in particular due to drawing on the expertise of their employees and the materials in their archives.
    Bottom line, the balance of probabilities here strongly favours this being a {{PD-USGov}} work. --Xover (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
did you try contacting the author to find out if it is a work for hire? (there are also four copyrighted images.) don't know why you would speculate that authors for a US government publisher would retain rights: different year, same USGov methods. Slowking4Rama's revenge 11:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I should make clear, when I say "bottom line" I mean "bottom line for me". This is not a case where there is an unequivocal right or wrong answer: but for me the balance of the evidence (absent new information) falls down on the side of it being PD-USGov. The opposite conclusion is equally valid, I just don't find the arguments for it persuasive. --Xover (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Index:Constitution of India, As on 09 September 2020.pdf[edit]

User:Hrishikes noted that this might be a copyvio per the Commons discussions at Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Media_in_Category:Unreviewed_photos_of_GODL-India and Commons:Template_talk:GODL-India#Can_the_user_site_assume_GODL?, bringing here for a decision. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hrishikes:, @MSG17: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It is {{PD-EdictGov}} locally, which is sufficient. I don’t think that there are too many works hosted here that could be culled by the proposed deletion (on Commons), but this section should remain open until the determination occurs. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC).
    • This is not Edict-Gov. The concept of Edict-Gov is a matter of inter-government courtesy, where one country recognises another country's Edict-Gov. The definition of Edict-Gov given in section 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium III of U.S. Copyright Office Practices includes legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, etc. This document is not one of them. This is not Edict-Gov in India, not being covered by section 52(1)(q) of the Indian Copyright Act. As far as I understand, the U.S. does not disregard other countries' copyrights, except when the work was published more than 95 years ago or when the U.S. does not have copyright relations with the source country. The U.S. does have copyright relations with India, because of multiple bilateral and international treaties. Therefore, we should not interpret Edict-Gov in a manner violative of another country's copyright, especially when the U.S. has copyright relations with that country. Hrishikes (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
      • The Constitution, along with all amendments thereto, constitute an integral portion of the law of India, and are therefore obviously excluded from copyright as a “legislative enactment[]… or similar type[] of official legal material[],” by §313.6(C)(2); this is immediately followed by the following: “[T]he Office will not register… any translation prepared,” &c. All legal works in India must be translated into the English language, and the Constitution (as revised) is no exception to this rule. In addition, the copyright law of India has no bearing on the public-domain status in the United States, as the government-edicts exemption is in no wise related to international-law comity. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC).
        • This is not "legislative enactment", because, in its current form, it was not enacted by any legislature. It is a composite document, consisting of the original constitution and the multiple amendments thereto. Being edited that way, the editing government department holds copyright of it. That is why it was not uploaded to Commons under the Edict-Gov provision. All items listed in section 313.6(C)(2) are directly issued by the competent legislative or executive authority; therefore, "similar documents" mean other such directly issued documents of legal nature. This document, being an edited one, has no force of law. No executive authority can issue orders citing the authority of this composite document. Therefore, this document is of literary nature, and not of "official legal" nature. Another updated version of the Indian constitution is present in this site, created by Wikisource volunteers. That volunteer-created document has no force of law, and neither has this one. Accordingly, this is not Edict-Gov. Hrishikes (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
          • I disagree with your appraisal of the state of the enactment, and maintain that it is an “official legal” work. I do not know enough about the functions of the Indian government to conclusively prove this, but I believe that this edition, created by the “Secretary to the Government of India,” was done in his official capacity as such, and that he does not have any legal copyright in the composite work. Even if this Constitution were not to be considered a government edict, it does not follow that the editor holds copyright, as the instructions provided in the acts amending the Constitution leave no room for creative expression nor originality—the requirements for copyright. (The work would then be in the public domain both as a government edict (the individual sections) and as a work ineligible for copyright (the combination of the sections).) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC).
  • Wherefrom are you getting the idea that a foreword by the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, makes the document Edict-Gov? It makes the document a "government document", not Edict-Gov. The work has to be assessed as a whole, and not as individual sections, because it has been uploaded as whole. And wherefrom are you getting the idea that a government document is ineligible for copyright? It is ineligible in the U.S., of course, but that ineligibility is extended to foreign Edict-Gov documents only, not other government documents.
  • This work is an annotated work, because of updating of original text, footnotes, front matter and back matter (including appendices). Such an annotated work can also be Edict-Gov, if it has "force of law", as provided for in the concluding part of section 313.6(C)(2) of Copyright Comp3. And if it does not have force of law, then it is to be considered as a "non-dramatic literary work", as per section 717.1 of Copyright Comp3.
  • Now, about this "force of law". Obviously, an Indian document cannot have force of law in the U.S., so it must have force of law in India. So, can an annotated version or a translated version of a legislative enactment have force of law in India? It can, if it is declared as an "authoritative text". Such a declaration has to be made under the authority of the President of India, invoking the provisions of Authoritative Texts (Central Laws) Act, 1973. A document, so notified, will have the same authority as the original enactment, and accordingly, force of law. You can see such a notification on page 1 of this file at Commons. The document under discussion has not been notified as authoritative text, therefore it does not have force of law, and accordingly, it is not Edict-Gov in either India or U.S.
  • As a government document, it has a copyright of 60 years from publication year (2020) in India. This copyright will be recognised in the U.S., as per section 104(b)(2) of 17 U.S.C, India being a treaty country. Then this U.S. copyright will last for 95 years.
  • This document can still be hosted here under a certain condition. This was originally hosted in the website of the Legislative Department, Ministry of Law & Justice, India, which is the creator department. Source site policy given at says:
"Material featured on this Website may be reproduced free of charge after taking proper permission by sending a mail to us. However, the material has to be reproduced accurately and not to be used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Wherever the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. However, the permission to reproduce this material shall not extend to any material which is identified as being copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the departments/copyright holders concerned."
Accordingly, the file is hostable, if permission is obtained from the Legislative Department. Then it will be covered under a CC license or equivalent. Hrishikes (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Update: File has been deleted at Commons. Hrishikes (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Index:Login USENIX Newsletter feb1983.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Kept. USENIX have released pre-1997 issues into the public domain.

Copyright notice on page 2.

No evidence for the PD claim used on the upload. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  • A number of ;login: issues, in addition to this one, were uploaded to the Internet Archive by a user named “USENIX,” which acts as, or is operated on behalf of, USENIX. According to their Web-site, they plan to retroactively release all back issues of ;login: as open-access publications; however, their Web-site does not give a specific date for this, nor does it give the type of license they intend to publish them under. I presume that the CC-0 release listed on the Internet Archive page is sufficient as official; and, if someone wishes to add more issues in the future, they should receive them from the USENIX Web-site, when they are released there. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC).
    • How do we know that USENIX on IA is operated on behalf of USENIX, as opposed to being some random user?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
      • That is the only missing link, it seems. I find it unlikely that some person has uploaded all of these issues of ;login: while operating as “USENIX” without USENIX knowing, especially because USENIX intends to pledge ;login: issues open-access; but, I have no proof of this claim. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC).
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Note that the file has been deleted at Commons, and I have filed an undeletion request. --Xover (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
    And the file has now been undeleted at Commons. --Xover (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Issues of ;login: published prior to 1997 have been uploaded to IA tagged as {{CC0}}. The uploads were made by user "USENIX" to the "USENIX" collection—which are both in themselves indications that it is unlikely to be a third party—and the USENIX homepage for ;login: now also links to that collection for access to the pre-1997 issues.
    Unless a Wikisource-specific complication surfaces in the near future I intend to close this as keep. --Xover (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Christmas Blessings[edit]

This is a more complex case. It has several titles; the 2009 HPL bibliography gives it as "Christmas Greetings to Mrs. Phillips Gramwell—1925", and numbers it I.B.iii.31.b. It then says it was first published as "Christmas Greeting to Mrs. Gamwell—1925", in Beyond the Wall of Sleep. Given that it mentions 112 Christmas greetings by HPL, and it's hardly a form unique to him, it should probably be moved to the later name if kept.

Beyond the Wall of Sleep was a 1943 work and needed a copyright renewal, which it got. From Gutenberg's renewal transcriptions, we get "Beyond the wall of sleep. Collected by August Derleth & Donald Wandrei. NM: compilation. © 22Nov43; A177408. August Derleth & Donald Wandrei (A); 6Apr71; R504228." There's an argument here that the "NM: compilation" would not protect any works published in it, and it is unlikely to be have been legally published earlier. I'm not sure how a judge would rule, especially in the modern day.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  • The copyright was registered as “Lovecraft (H. P.) Beyond the wall of sleep, by H. P. Lovecraft. Collected by August Derleth and Donald Wandrei. © Nov. 22, 1943; A 177408; August Derleth & Donald Wandrei, Sauk City, Wis. [7171]” (p. 235). As such, while the copyright was obtained for the whole work, only the copyright for the compilation was renewed, meaning that the poems of Lovecraft first published in Beyond the Wall of Sleep are in the public domain, but the work itself is not. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC).
    • I don't know. I don't think you can renew part of a registration like that; the renewal should cover everything the registration covered. says Derleth and Wandrei claimed ownership of the Lovecraft copyrights, which is unclear as to its accuracy. If they owned the Lovecraft copyrights, then the original registration would have covered new publications, I believe, and then any added notes in the renewal may have been harmless error. I'd almost say the original registration hurts our case, since it's a registration of Lovecraft's work and has no limitation to compilation. It's ugly; Lovecraft, Lovecraft's heirs, Derleth and Wandrei all failed to dot their i's and cross their t's, so a lot of this stuff depends on what documentation might be found in a legal battle or how lenient a judge was on minor errors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
      • That is not unique to this registration; several other renewals (from this specific location) claim only “new material,” when the registrations did not. I do not believe the Derleth and Wandrei actually ever claimed copyright over Lovecraft’s works, but only claimed copyright for the compilation, and it is for that reason that the renewal is specifically limited to the compilation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC).
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete While acknowledging TE(æ)A,ea.'s argument, I come down on Prosfilaes' side on this one. --Xover (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

On Spiritual Warfare[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Replaced by On The Spiritual Battle, an updated translation which does not contain quotes from non-free sources and which both the translator and the editor released into the public domain. The original page On Spiritual Warfare was changed into a redirect.

Tagged as no source, no license, unidentified translator since 2011.

However, on the talk page, MarkLSteadman identified the translation as [5]. The editor says:

This translation is under no copyright protection. It is my gift to you. You may freely copy, print, and transmit it, but please do not change or sell it.

This is self-contradictory and probably a misunderstanding of copyright: the translation is from 2009 so is copyrighted, and the statement includes no-derivatives and non-commercial clauses which are incompatible with our copyright policy. Additionally, to be nitpicky, the translator ought to grant any license in the translation, not the editor. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete BethNaught (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Could one argue that, if the translation is under no copyright protection, then derivatives and commercial use are permitted by law, and the stipulation to not change or sell it is a request that can be legally ignored? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Specifically to Beleg Tâl's point, it's not technically self-contradictory; one can make requests like "please do not change or sell it" without affecting the underlying public domain grant. But anyway you cut it, it's a dreadfully ambiguous license, and I feel it less than likely the intent was to put it in the public domain and not to restrict changing or selling it. If they were in a community that puts emphasis on open/free licenses, they would have written CC-Zero but we request you don't, or something like that. And does this work? In the US this might, though I think lawyers would much prefer "I, Joe Schmoe, place my translation in the public domain" to a statement that reads more like a (false) statement than a grant. My understanding is that EU law and most copyright law not based on US law dislikes the whole "dedicate to the public domain" thing, which is why CC-Zero is so much longer, so the fact the translator is Czech might be a problem.
And going back to BethNaught's point, did in fact the translator put it in the public domain? This whole thing is a careless sloppy mess, and I'm not really thrilled to have it here, unless someone can get clarification that the translator did in fact make that offer, and preferably a CC-0 license from the translator making their intent perfectly clear.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and the document says "The source text for this translation is Eduard Petrů’s Little Writings (Drobné Spisy), published in 1966. I have used the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible except where the translation was closer in the King James (KJV)." So the source text has at best a complex relationship with the public domain, and the translation of the Bible most used is non-free.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I am trying to get contact to Charis Enns to ask for clarification.
As for the Bible translation, there are only short quotations, which I think is permitted by copyright laws. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: If you follow up there, make sure to use the OTRS process so we get all our p's and q's in order. --Xover (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The NIV has pretty broad rules about using verses from it, but I'd argue fair use is pretty weak on a substitutable work like a Bible translation where the author is saying nothing special about the NIV, and the real issue is we don't permit it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: The right to quote has always been accepted by various world jurisdictions and e.g. Berne convention accepts it too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure whether Fair Use and the Right to Quote are the same things, but e. g. Wikipedia does not allow fair use but allows quoting and I have never noticed there any copyright issues raised against it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, now I have realized that English Wikipedia allows fair use, my mistake, but e. g. Czech Wikipedia does not while quoting is allowed there. I guess it is similar with other Wikipedias too. So that is why I assume that the right to quote is different from fair use. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
It's not separate in the US, and I don't think it was intended to be separate in Wikisource policy. (The legalities don't concern me as much, though unless you're following the NIV explicit permission, I'm concerned how much quoting is allowed in various countries, and in the US, you're using a very replaceable translation for its underlying work, not the translation itself, which would weaken fair use justifications.) I am concerned about Wikisource policy; it at best pushes the line to be reproducing a serious bit of a modern copyrighted translation here for any purpose.
Also, edition copyrights are hairy and unpleasant; we wouldn't generally reproduce a new edition produced in 1966, and while some editions are mild spelling changes and a few choice decisions about readings, you can get some pretty distinctive merging of seriously different originals in some cases, distinctiveness that would show up clearly through translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per Prosfilaes. --Xover (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I have contacted the translator Charis Enns and both she and her co-worker Tom Lock have agreed to release the translation under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence. I can now take further steps and upload the PDF copy of the work to Commons and verify it through OTRS, but before doing so I would like to close this discussion reach agreement first because I do not want to do all the work and bother both translators with sending further emails to OTRS should this work be deleted in Wikisource anyway. Although I understand the concerns raised by Prosfilaes, I hope they are not a real obstacle for keeping this translation after the translators released their work under a free licence. Pinging also @BethNaught, @Xover:. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • If we can get it released under CC-BY-SA 3.0, that's great. Barring concerning evidence about the matter, I'm willing to drop worries about the underlying edition. But I'm still concerned about extensive quoting from non-free sources. We or they could switch to something like the American Standard Version or its recent updating the w:World English Bible / Bible (World English).--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • You've addressed my original concerns, but I'm still unsure about the NIV issues Prosfilaes raised. Firstly, the work does not reproduce the copyright statement required by the NIV licensing rules. Secondly, even if that were remedied, I'm still concerned about quoting so much non-free text: is it in line with our copyright policy? It's not fair use (which is forbidden) because, modulo the missing copyright statement, it seems to comply with the NIV license. But does that license impose too many restrictions on downstream users to be considered non-free according to our free content definition? BethNaught (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
      After further discussing the issue with both the translator and editor of the text, they allowed me to replace the NIV quotations with those from the World English Bible, which I did. The editor also dropped out the note forbidding changes to the text and its commercial use, so now it is in public domain. I also found and corrected there a minor mistake in a quotation number, and one external link to a dead site was updated in a footnote. After checking it they published the updated text at (PDF here), so if you agree, I will upload the PDF file to Commons, found the page On The Spiritual Battle, change the current page On Spiritual Warfare into a redirect, and hide all non-free revisions of that page. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
      @Prosfilaes, @BethNaught, @Xover: I think I did not perform the ping properly, so one more try. Apologies, if you get it twice. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
      Done, see On The Spiritual Battle. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
      Thank you! I'm happy with that. Only thing left is to verify permissions from Enns and Lock using OTRS, but I'm sure you have that in hand. BethNaught (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
      Tom Lock has granted the permission directly in the Editor’s note. I have asked Charis Enns to send a confirmation email to OTRS. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
      So Charis Enns has written the confirmation email to OTRS, but she received an answer that they need not only her consent, but the consent of Petr Chelčický too :-D. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
      Confirmed in OTRS. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Errors Made in Jutland Battle[edit]

1932 work for author that died in 1935. Copyright in the US. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Probably much of the rest of Category:PD-old-70 too? E.g. The Times/1927/Letters to the Editor/The Late Dr. Jackson, author died 1933, so copyright in 1996 → copyright in US until 2023.
This URAA thing is rubbish. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I have been cleaning up the others, which is how I tripped over the nominated work. The nominated work was unpublished until 1955 so is an egregious case which cannot fall under PD-old-70 and it doesn't fit under PD-posthumous. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
For The Times/1927/Letters to the Editor/The Late Dr. Jackson, was it not copyright in 1996 in the UK? Huxley died in 1933, so 70 pma is 2003. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 00:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

2020 Republican National Convention/Ivanka Trump's speech[edit]

This is not a public domain speech. It is irrelevant that Trump is a government employee. This speech was not part of their government work, and therefore is not automatically public domain. I tried nominating it for speedy deletion on these grounds (it is quite cut and dry: since it's not part of her work as a government employee, it is not automatically public domain), but someone stopped that wrongly arguing that, because of her government employment, there is nuance to it. There is no nuance. This was entirely a campaign speech, not a speech delivered as part of her government work. SecretName101 (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It has been the practice to maintain those convention speeches of those in government employment, well specifically the politicians. There is plenty of previous discussion in archives that should be read as part of the contemplation. Interestingly as her own job was contingent on the speech. If it was anyone else but the Trumps you may have an argument, however, this family has done their best to take the government and the political into the private. . — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For reference:
Since this stuff comes up every election, we need to write it down somewhere if we have decided something. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 00:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


and my memory was that we basically fell into the space of an active Federal government politician / employee at the convention was pretty much fair game. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:, the Trumps are not treated any differently by copyright laws than anyone else is. Her job was not "contingent" on this speech. While they are, perhaps, related, this speech was simply not a part of her official role as advisor to the president. Only speeches written and delivered in her official duties would be devoid of copyright protection as works of a federal government employee as part of their job.. SecretName101 (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Remarks by John McCain at the 1988 Republican National Convention[edit]

I think Remarks by John McCain at the 1988 Republican National Convention is not covered by the copyright it is tagged with. This was not a work McCain created in his capacity as a federal employee. He delivered it as a private citizen. I believe that this, like the speech being discussed above by Ivanka Trump at the 2020 RNC, needs to be deleted. SecretName101 (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Governor's Speech at Farewell Ceremony of Hong Kong Handover 1997[edit]

The text is a speech made by Christopher Patten at 1997-06-30. As a Hong Kong official work (not a government edict, because it has no administrative/legislative/judicial purposes/functions), it is protected by government copyright according to Template:PD-HKGov, and as it is first made after the URAA date of 1996-01-01, the text is still copyrightable in the United States.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

People's Daily Editorials[edit]

Do we know if works of the People's Daily are copyrighted in the United States? I would guess that those before 1970 are copyright-free in China due to expiration but only those before 1946 when the URAA went into affect are copyright free in the US due to expiration? However, some of them may have been published in translation before 1964 and then covered by non-Renewal (e.g. by Foreign Language Press)? I don't think it counts as an official government work. Some works I found here are:

MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete{{PD-PRC-exempt}} doesn't cover official documents other than government edicts, and the fact that we don't even know the author and year of publication make determining whether the texts are in U.S. public domain almost impossible.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The author is presumably corporate as an editorial. The publication dates in China were Dec. 31 1962 (, March 4 1963 ( and April 5 1956 ( I would assume it would work as non-renewal if that came out within 30 days in the US of being published abroad? MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Jakob Jakobsen portrait[edit]

An Etymological Dictionary of the Norn Language in Shetland Part I Page 10 Jakob Jakobsen Portrait.png

The frontispiece to Jakobsen's Norn dictionary has a portrait of the man himself, but the quality of the NLS's scan is pretty poor when it comes to the images. I have found a much better copy of the exact same portrait here. Would I be allowed to replace this image on Commons with this hi-res version, or would the copyright on this be separate to what's in the book scans? — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 19:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Because one of the authors died in 1961, this photograph cannot be uploaded to Commons, regardless of whether you take the copy from the frontispiece to the book or from the digital collection. However, if the photograph were first published more than 95 years ago (anywhere, not necessarily in the dictionary), you can upload it here, to the English Wikisource, as we follow only US copyright laws, according to which material published more than 95 years ago is in the public domain.

However, there might also be a problem with the dictionary as such. You have uploaded it to Commons, stating that it was released under cc-by-4.0 license. This license is usually used only when the author of the work released it under such conditions, which does not seem to be the case. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I have just had a closer look at the book. The author Jakob Jakobsen died in 1918, but the English edition was published for the first time in 1928, and so I am afraid that it is not going to enter the public domain in the United States until 2024 :-( --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Jan.Kamenicek I had this same discussion previously on my talk page - the reason I placed the work under CC-BY-4.0 is because the National Library of Scotland released their scans under this license (see here). I am not aware of the circumstances under which this has been allowed to take place, but presumably a national institution such as themselves would have done the due diligence to have released it with the correct permissions.
Assuming that it is indeed released under CC-BY-4.0, does that change anything relating to this image?— 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 23:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I would say the photograph is a simple photo and only covered by the shorter term in Danish copyright. commons:Template:PD-Denmark50 would apply, and that one of the mentioned photographers died in 1961 is not necessarily a problem with regards to uploading to commons. This version is attributed to two different photographers, the previous owners of the same photography company. But I am also concerned about the copyright status of the book in the USA. I suspect the National Library of Scotland only checked the copyright status in the UK, ignoring the status in USA, and that the only thing they have released is their own rights to the scanning process (which would usually be ignored on commons anyway). (A quick side note on the text at the bottom of the frontispiece: In "Pacht & Crone's Eftf.", Eftf. is short for Efterfølgere = successors so that last letter is unlikely to be an A.) Peter Alberti (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I just stumbled on a publication of the photo in a 1918 newspaper. So the portrait is not a problem. You can use commons:Template:PD-Denmark50 and commons:Template:PD-old-auto-expired on commons, regardless of which photographer is the right one. Peter Alberti (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
@Peter Alberti: Thanks for finding another version – that appears to be more closely edited to the version in the book. And thanks for the advice, I'll put both up on Commons seeing as it was published in 1918 (or possibly earlier).
As for the dictionary itself, I have contacted the National Library of Scotland to confirm the licence on it, and I'll share the response I get. I hope this is not a mistake as I have probably poured several hundred hours into the transcription so far. Here's hoping.— 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 15:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I have a reply from NLS:
"The CC BY 4.0 licence that you're seeing was applied by the Library in relation to the digital images created by the Library, rather than in respect of the 'underlying' work (which, in this case, is the writing by Jakobsen...). There is some debate in the UK as to whether 'faithful' digitisations like these are protected by copyright. The Library's position on this matter has evolved over recent years and during this time we have applied increasingly open licences to our digitised images. However, we are aware that this approach still does not provide the clearest and most accurate information, namely because it does not communicate the copyright status of the 'underlying' work. Therefore, we are currently working to update our rights statements, to provide a more accurate portrayal of the copyright status of the work itself, rather than our digital images. This process will take us some time to complete, as the current CC BY 4.0 licence has been applied to virtually all of our digital images. Therefore, we are working through our digitised collections to identify the correct rights statement to apply to different works. Over time, we will update the rights information displayed in our Digital Gallery, for example from changing 'CC BY 4.0' to 'Public Domain', in cases where we know the underlying work is out of copyright.
In terms of your immediate use of this material, I have not personally investigated the copyright status of this work. However, based on the information you have provided regarding authorship and translation, it sounds like the writing will be in the public domain (out of copyright) in the UK, where copyright in a published written normally survives for 70 years after the death of the last living author of a work. The CC BY 4.0 licence relates only to the digital image, so if you are not re-using the image, you do not need to take it into account (I see you note that you're making a transcription). Even if you do wish to re-use/re-publish the images, you are very free to do so - under the CC BY 4.0 licence you can effectively do anything you wish with the images, as long as you cite the licence and attribute the source (the Library, in this case). Precise details of the licence are available at
You are welcome to share this response with other users of Wikisource.
With kind regards,
Fredric Saunderson
Rights and Information Manager
National Library of Scotland"
I can't help but feel this CC license applied only to the images, but not the work itself, seems pretty disingenuous to me. How is it possible to share the images without sharing the work itself? The notice next to the download links on their website says "Unless otherwise stated, these images and transcriptions may be used under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence". How is any reasonable person with good intent such as myself meant to know that that only refers to the images of the pages, and not the work itself? This notice is unreasonably unclear.
Anyway, I suppose my hundreds of hours of work here so far are now in jeopardy because of this. I hope you can understand I'd like to exhaust any option that may allow my work to stay up. Would the work be eligible under Template:PD-1996? It was first published (in English) in London, as far as I am aware the work has never been published in the US (only in London and Lerwick in the UK), it was first published in 1928/1932, and if you go by Jakob Jakobsen's death in 1918, that would have put it in the public domain in the home country (the UK) in 1988, before the URAA date. Would this be deemed acceptable? Apologies if I have any of this wrong, I'm trying to learn these copyright rules as I go.— 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 21:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Do not apologize for anything, copyright laws are really confusing for most people, myself included. As far as I understand it, Jakobsen was the author of the English text, and so (based on the date of his death) PD-1996 seems OK to me. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: I'm glad to hear it's not just me struggling with this sort of thing! I have replaced the copyright template with Template:PD-1996 for now. If there's any change in opinion it can be swapped out again, hopefully without the removal of my work so far. Thanks to you both for your advice.— 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 22:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Landmark Education suffers humiliating legal defeat in New Jersey Federal Court[edit]

My attention was drawn to this page due to an IP removing text and changing a couple of words. On digging into the linked website I find the statement: "Unless otherwise noted, all material on this site is Copyright © Rick Ross." This makes the page a copyvio. However, as the page has been here for seven years (tomorrow), I thought it best to have a discussion rather than a speedy deletion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we verify OTRS ticket#2014012710014942? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 06:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: The page creator, User:Cirt, has been indefbanned on Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. They have been dormant on this project since 2016. I have taken the liberty of removing all of their long-out of date administrator userboxes from their user page, as they are no longer an admin on any project. BD2412 T 21:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Remarks by President Biden in a CNN Town Hall with Anderson Cooper deleted[edit]

User:Billinghurst deleted this with the rationale that one of the two persons in the conversation is not a federal government employee. Is there a copyright for seemingly spontaneous comments that mostly cannot be copyright-able due to their length and lack of creative complexity? To see the conversation: Additionally, there are audience questions: it's not clear to me that these are copyright-able either. Does anyone have a perspective on this? If there is something that could be covered by copyright, maybe it's the introduction that could be something considered copyright-able for its length: if so, let's remove that and keep the question and answer portion. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The previous commentary for interviews is that they have levels of preparation and scripted questions. Each interviewer and questioner owns the copyright to their component. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
But you can't have a copyright on "And considering that hybrid and virtual school instruction have been in place for nearly a year now, what is the plan and recommendation to get students back into the brick-and-mortar buildings? As a parent of four children, I find it imperative that they get back to school as safely as possible." that is not sufficiently original or creative as a work. And questions like, "So when do you think that would be — K-through-8, at least five days a week if possible?" are both too short to copyright and are spontaneous speaking. What other than possibly the introductory material could be copyrighted? Even that is fairly brief and could be easily excised. What precedent is there that "What about the Uyghurs? What about the human rights abuses in China?" is something that can have a copyright in the United States? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Actually, yes you can. Length is not in itself determinative of eligibility for copyright. Interview questions and overall plan for the interview are inevitably prepared in advance; the interviewer will have researched the topics to prepare for the interview; and someone's perceived skill and popularity as an interviewer hinges in part on that preparation. Unless there is some novel factor in play here, this work is still in copyright and ineligible for hosting on Wikisource. --Xover (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
To note: Author pages can have links to externally hosted works—when within our scope—that are published elsewhere and are not a breach of copyright. So fair use works, CC-NC licensed or where the author has published the work are acceptable. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: "Length is not in itself determinative of eligibility for copyright" You are directly contradicted by the United States Copyright Office: "Words and short phrases [...] are uncopyrightable because they contain an insufficient amount of authorship. The Office will not register individual words or brief combina-tions of words, even if the word or short phrase is novel, distinctive, or lends itself to a play on words... Examples of names, titles, or short phrases that do not contain a sufficient amount of creativity to support a claim in copyright include... Mottos, slogans, or other short expressions". Where are you getting your information and why are you saying that this circular is incorrect? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
This is rather more than "short expressions": Cooper's contributions are multiple sentences. A single sentence like "I saw a picture of you with your grandson recently." is almost certainly not copyrightable, but his entire contribution to this document is (since it's not an off-the-cuff conversation, c.f. Trump-Raffensperger Call Transcript, but a semi-scripted, pre-prepared event). The guidance you reference is more about disallowing slapping anyone using basic linguistic constructions with a copyright suit. It was a dark and stormy night. by itself probably wouldn't attract copyright, but the text of Paul Clifford would be (it were published today). It's an limitation of the principle that you can make a copyrighted text out of words, even if words themselves are public domain, to set the threshold above building blocks of language like phrases, and to avoid Marvel being able to sue anyone who dared to utter "You're not going alone!" because it was in one of their films.
Mottos and slogans can still be protected under trademark rules. Examples of where copyright doesn't apply, but trademark does is the Google wordmark. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, responding here by request, even though Inductiveload covers the essence above.
The Copyright Office's Circular 33 does not actually say that text that is shorter than an arbitrary length is ineligible for copyright. In addition to the distinction between what the law is and what are mere practices of the Copyright Office (which distinction is mainly academic), what they actually write is Words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans, are uncopyrightable because they contain an insufficient amount of authorship. That is, what makes them uncopyrightable is not their length but their insufficient amount of authorship, and the length is just a proxy for that. The distinction is relevant because "short" can be quite subjective, as aptly demonstrated by the kinds of things they list as an example:
  • The name of an individual (including pseudonyms, pen names, or stage names)
  • The title or subtitle of a work, such as a book, a song, or a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work
  • The name of a business or organization
  • The name of a band or performing group
  • The name of a product or service
  • A domain name or URL
  • The name of a character
  • Catchwords or catchphrases
  • Mottos, slogans, or other short expressions
That is, their intended interpretation is not the colloquial "short" but rather something like "extremely short". For the two latter bullets, think "Bazinga!" or "Stop the Steal!" rather than "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; / Or close the wall up with our English dead.". A Haiku, for example, is eminently copyrightable: "The west wind whispered, / And touched the eyelids of spring: / Her eyes, Primroses." And the questions in that interview are mostly into the haiku length rather than "Bazinga!".
But as Inductiveload points out above, that all is mostly irrelevant because you can't really separate out shorter and shorter pieces of a whole in order to call it uncopyrightable. You can't assess a single sentence out of a book as too short and cumulatively end up with a whole novel that is uncopyrightable. The questions exist in a context and make up part of a whole; so for copyright purposes we have to assess the work as a whole. --Xover (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Early Christian Attitude To War/foreword[edit]

In checking up on the authors of this with a view to uploading scans from internet archive for this work, I found that the Foreword is by Rev. W.E. Orchard (20 November 1877 – 12 June 1955). The foreword is thus not necessarily PD outside the US for another 6 years or so, It is PD in the US (as pre 1926)

The rest of the work IS pd in the UK as Cadoux died in 1947.

I am bringing this here for a second opinion ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Your assessment sounds correct to me. --Xover (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Note that I uploaded a scan to Commons. If it needs to be amended, please {{Ping}} me and I will take out pages, etc. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@Koavf: I wouldn't take out the pages, I would just load blank pages in their place and upload with annotation, and then get the first version deleted. Doing it that way allows for the easy revert in the years ahead, when that copyright has expired. Voila! the full work will be back. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Correct: Strictly speaking, "taking out" pages would impact the pagination, which actually matters for print sources. Good distinction. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Since it's a 1919 publication, it's automatically PD-US per publication +95, so just upload it at enWS and we can move back to Commons after 1955 + 70 (so, 2026)? You only need to blank pages if you must have it at Commons. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

What is an Anarchist?[edit]

Source seems which would imply expiry 95 years after publication (1925) of the original and the translation is CC-BY-SA which would imply it could be hosted correct? MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

On upload they cited, which then referred elsewhere. If we can determine that this is the translator, then I would agree with you. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah references which references the link I posted. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

A Life[edit]

Une vie (aka. L'Humble Vérité) is an 1883 French novel by Guy de Maupassant (1850–1893). It was first translated into English as A Woman's Life, and was included in multiple The Works of … collections up through about 1909. None of these, that I have found, identify the translator and I have found no third party source that discusses it.

Our text is titled A Life (arguably both better and more accurate) which is, aiui, a more modern (latter half of the 20th-century) translation of the title. It also has several features of being a modern text, looking not unlikely to have been copied from a modern ebook edition. Except my recent cleanup it has essentially no wiki formatting: it's just the raw text. But it's not OCR text, so whatever the source was it was formatted by humans. It also does not identify the translator, nor even assert a translation license.

Unless someone can identify the specific translation this is from, I think we'll have to assume it's a modern one and still in copyright. --Xover (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Nature articles[edit]

In the paper I recently uploaded here it is part of a seminal science series which outlines the discussion and proposals of international changes to global species management. The first paper in the series was published in Nature, which is owned by Springer, published here. From my knowledge of Springer and the journal Nature, I am imagining there is no way this one will meet copywrite requirements here. Would I be correct in this? Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Faendalimas: I see no indication this article is compatibly licensed, no. However, for your project it may be worthwhile to contact the authors. Depending on their contract with Nature it is possible (unlikely given what little I know of those contracts, but possible) they retain sufficient rights to publish a copy under a compatible license. --Xover (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: yeah thats what I suspected. I know the aithors they are my coauthors in other papers in this. I doubt Nature, or in reality the publisher Springer, left them with such rights, I have published there too. However I will ask the authors if they would contact Nature for permission in writing. See what happens. Nature were actually very happy with this series of papers, including the parts they did not publish, and may like to see all the parts of it together, so long as they get due credit for the one paper they published. If they say no nothing has changed. Its not uploaded yet I wont upload anything that breaches copywrite. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
@Faendalimas: They can use the OTRS process described at Com:OTRS process. They can make permissions enWS if they so choose, or they can do Commons+. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Anthem of antioquia[edit]

The national anthem of Antioquia, originally a 19th-century poem now long out of copyright. However, I can find no provenance for this English translation. The anthem was officially adopted in 2010, and the text was added here the same year so it seems likely the translation was made that year. Absent specific information to the contrary it seems we can only conclude that this is a modern translation. --Xover (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Caracas Commitment[edit]

A resolution from the "First Latin American Meeting of the Encounter of Recovered Companies" which took place in 2005. From what I can tell the original was in one of the Latin American languages, and I can find no provenance for this translation. It was added in 2009 and 2011 by Toussaint (no longer active) and RayneVanDunem (still edits intermittently). Absent information to the contrary we must assume that both the original and the translation are still in copyright. --Xover (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)