Wikisource:Copyright discussions

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'

Autobiography of a Yogi

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept; copyright claim not valid.

I found a renewal for the work, so would this be a copyright violation? Nighfidelity (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Actually I raised this issue in 2008. There are arguments on Talk:Autobiography of a Yogi. Self Realization v. Ananda Church says that copyright claim by SRF is not valid. The whole issue is whether SRF was the rightful heirs of Paramahansa Yogananda. Yann (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

According to Self Realization v. Ananda Church it really seems that copyright claim by SRF to books by Yogananda is not valid. However, in 2017 Red Rose 13 wrote that it "relates only to the items addressed in the lawsuit and the Autobiography of a Yogi was not a part of the lawsuit", which I do not understand, as the lawsuit does not seem to be limited to some specific books only. The Conclusion talks about "books copied during their renewal terms". Comments? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Unless somebody reveals a reason why this book should not be considered a part of the lawsuit, I will close this discussion as "kept" soon. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 1--Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Rocky Road to Dublin

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted; public domain status not proven.

Unsourced version. Although the original lyrics was written by D. K. Gavan, in fact they "vary depending on the singer" (quoted from Wikipedia). Without knowing the source and the singer of this specific version, its copyright status cannot be determined. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The version here seems to be identical to here, a song by The High Kings, a prominent Irish folk band founded in 2008, meaning it's almost certainly a copvio. Nighfidelity (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Considering the High Kings were founded in 2008, and our version dates to 2007, isn't it more likely they copied us than the contributor in 2007 had a time machine, went into the future copied it from a band in the future? MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Declaration of the Independence of Burma

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted; public domain status not proven.

Comes from here, meaning the translation is still in copyright. Nighfidelity (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Letter to Shaheed Sukhdev

Looks as copypasted from https://www.marxists.org/archive/bhagat-singh/1929/04/05.htm where it is marked as copyrighted. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The text seems to be match exactly the 1986 selected writings. I am not even sure whether the original is in English or not though. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

ping @User:Bodhisattwa can you add any details? -- Beardo (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@Beardo:, This letter was written in 1929 and was exhibited at Lahore conspiracy case in 1929-1930, so we can take 1930 as date of publication, if we consider it as a legal evidence in a court. The copyright mark by marxists.org is thus not valid though; it looks like to me that it has taken the text from here at shahidbhagatsingh.org and so, gave a copyright mark on it, but I am pretty sure, that website does not possess the copyright of the letter in any way, as it is just an archival website collecting all the writings of the author. Regarding the language, I am not 100% sure, if it was wriiten in English or in some other languages like Punjabi or Urdu, but many of the letters written to his comrades by Bhagat Singh were originally in English, and we can assume that this was also in English too. But, to be sure, we need to physically visit the National Archives of India to look out for the evidences used in Lahore conspiracy trial, one such document is here -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

My concern was that it was written in an Indian language and the translation dates back to say the 1986 collected writings, that would have it's own copyright. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Index:Liberalism and Social Action.pdf

Published in 1935. There is a renewal Renewal ID: R300263 (here) - although it says the original publication was 1925, a renewal in 1962 fits 1935. -- Beardo (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Looking in Gutenberg #11800, where Stanford sourced all this data, this comes from a section surrounded by 1935 renewals. (Including A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens. The novelization of the movie, because that was needed.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• The original registration is here; it is indeed from 1935, so it’s just an error on the part of the registration printer. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Medical radiation exposure of pregnant and potentially pregnant women - recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (IA medicalradiation00nati).pdf

I noticed a copyright on page 4 on the 1977 book, and apparently, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, the publisher, merely "has a congressional charter . . . but this does not imply any sort of oversight by Congress; NCRP is not a government entity." Is this a copyvio? Nighfidelity (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Yep, looks like it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

So that also covers Index:Medical radiation exposure of pregnant and potentially pregnant women - recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (IA medicalradiation00nati).pdf. @User:EncycloPetey, do you have any comments ? -- Beardo (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I am not as fluent in government copyright as other members of this community. I defer to their expertise. The IA has had their scan available since 2015, so either the copyright or the availability is in error. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

 Delete The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements is not a government entity and there's nothing suggesting the government was involved in the creation of the work in any way. This work has a proper copyright notice, and I can find nothing suggesting that it was every released under a free license. The official website https://ncrp.liamcrest.com/ is marked All Rights Reserved and the publications are being sold. The Internet Archive has other works by this organization and alot of them are not freely available. This work and any others by this entity are almost certainly copyrighted. ToxicPea (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1994)

Translation done by Office of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is not a body of the Bosnian Government and so its texts are likely to be copyrighted in the US. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2026 (UTC)