Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2010-02

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in February 2010, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


Copyright Law of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep, Government edict or commissioned work
The source of this "unofficial translation" states "Copyright (c) 2005 ∙KoryoPAT- Rainbow Patent & Trademark Agency ∙ All right reserved". Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
QUOTE: "P.O. Box: 19, Ryonhwa-dong 1, Central District, Pyongyang, DPR Korea" - the website is of a company within the DPRK, and is thus under the jurisdiction of DPRK Law. Thus, Article 12 and Article 32 comes into effect under law. -- 李博杰  Talk contribs 12:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Law of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Article 12:

The documents of State management such as ordinance, decision or directive, current news and bulletins shall not be the object of copyright.

Copyright Law of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Article 32:

A copyrighted work may be used without the permission of the copyright owner, in the following cases:

  • [...]When a copyrighted work is quoted,
  • When a copyrighted work is performed free of charge, (The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-commercial, non-profit organization)
  • When a copyrighted work in public places is copied.
Regards, -- 李博杰  Talk contribs 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • With respect to "when a copyrighted work is performed free of charge", The Wikimedia Foundation's mission is about "free as in freedom, not free as in beer". For example, we are not permitted to upload images to commons under CC-NC licenses. I believe the fact that we are non-profit is irrelevant here. Hesperian 23:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This looks perfectly acceptable, especially under Sec. 12. To what extent is the DPRK party to any international conventions? Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know if the Democratic People's Republic of Korea endorses the principle of separation of legislature from executive, but from where I sit, "documents of State management such as ordinance, decision or directive: refers quite explicitly to executive documents, and does not necessary encompass legislation. Hesperian 23:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The DPRK is party to a number of WIPO treaties, most notably the Berne Convention since 2003. —LarryGilbert (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
This may also be of interest to all: 조선민주주의인민공화국 저작권법 Kindest regards, -- 李博杰  Talk contribs 12:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. As I see it, the copyright question we need to answer is US-based, and the translation is not clearly out of copyright outside of the North Korea. The original is clearly a Government edict, the translation is not so. The only argument that I see progressed is that it is not copyrighted within North Korea, and that has a lower level of relevance. billinghurst (talk)
Comment: Re Ec's questions WIPO's country profile:North Korea -- billinghurst (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Does the United States recognize North Korean copyrights? I know there are tags, like {{PD-Iran}} for countries that the US rejects. Is DPRK one of them? 05:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
It would seem the DPRK is not on the list, see the ref above Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States -- billinghurst (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: How about applying Copyright Law of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Article 32 to send the translation to Canadian Wikilivres as a work with non-commercial permission? This depends on how Canada treats North Korean copyright.--Jusjih (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Wikilivres accepts works under NC licenses, but it is not clear if this one is under such a license. The copyright statement doesn't mention that the translation was done "free of charge". Yann (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would the following tag be suitable for licensing? {{tl|Translation licence|original={{PD-GovEdict}}|translation={{PD-GovEdict}}}} -- 李博杰  Talk contribs 05:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The original licence would be correct, however, the translation licence can only be applied if the Government undertook the translation, hence as an edict. A private translation is not a government edict. billinghurst (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Isn't a derivative of a public-domain work still in the U.S. public domain? I understand that a translator can argue for copyrighting a translation when that person has had to piece together sparse information and inject some original work into it. But I think there's little if any argument for originality in translating a complete text of undisputed provenance. Thus the copyright would fall to the original copyright holder—in this case, none (the public domain). Do we have a "PD-derivative" template or some such? —LarryGilbert (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Two links found that assist
which say to me that
  1. if the original copyright holder had the translation undertaken on their behalf, then the original copyright holds
  2. if no artistic merit, no copyright (machine generated, etc.)
  3. if done on their own volition, and artistic merit, then copyright on translation
Summary: For North Korea, everything is done by the state, so I think we can assume that it is {{PD-GovEdict}} billinghurst (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Have I Not Seen[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Kept billinghurst (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not clear why the possibly copyright notice was put up on this. It appeared in Poems and Portraits in 1922. Don Marquis died in 1937. Both works published before 1923 and the non-posthumous works of authors who died before 1939 are in the public domain in the US. Mathlaura (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
No; only works published before 1923 are PD. Life+70 is only relevant in rare situations in US law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, it was still published prior to 1923. However, I did just notice that the version on the page is abbreviated. I have my original copy of the book not on me at the moment, but am going to check Google Books tonight. If I do not find it there, I will copy the full poem in when I can check it for accuracy from the original book. Mathlaura (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Here is the Google Books link showing the 1922 U.S. publication and copyright date. Life-plus-70 is irrelevant, as Prosfilaes said, because that provision applies only to works created in 1978 or later. But all works published and copyrighted in the U.S. before 1923 are in the public domain here irrespective of the date the author died. Tarmstro99 (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Have I Not Seen redirects to The Mystic. Is there an explanation or justification for that? Also when one looks at Poems and Portraits for Don Marquis it states published in 1915. There looks to be some tidying up required. billinghurst (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Correct title is The Mystic per source Jeepday (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles by Malcolm X from LA Herald-Dispatch/July 18, 1957[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Keep billinghurst (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
This article was added under the justification that it was republished in an FBI report, thus making it a work of the U.S. government and placing it in the public domain. I'm very sure this is not how it works. I've notified the user on the user's talk page. --LarryGilbert (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. They aren't works of the government, and the FBI report has nothing to do with it, but works first published in the US prior to 1964 would have had to have been renewed, and searching the online database of renewals at (for works renewed since 1977; i.e. stuff originally published after 1950 ± a couple years) shows no evidence of renewal for anything by Malcolm X (Malcolm Little) except for his autobiography and no evidence that the LA Herald-Dispatch as a whole or part was renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
In light of that new information, I agree. Keep. --LarryGilbert (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Stories from the Arabian nights[edit]

The following discussion is closed: speedy keep
This book is written in 1907 by Laurence Houseman, who died only in 1959. Copyvio or not? Richardprins (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Nope, in the United States any work published before 1923 (anywhere in the world) is automatically Public Domain. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 18:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
It's almost but not quite that simple. There is a weird gray area having to do with works first published outside the U.S. in non-English languages without copyright notices between July 1, 1909 and January 1, 1978--made further weird because it applies only to certain western United States and a couple of U.S. possessions. As with most weirdness in U.S. copyright law, we have the Walt Disney Company to thank for that. See Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, footnote 12. (I mention it only because I love every opportunity to bash Disney.) :-) --LarryGilbert (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, none of that would apply to Arabian Nights because it was published in 1907 in English. Thus it's still in the public domain. --LarryGilbert (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Kept in part/Deleted in part[edit]

Satiric Verses and Epigrams[edit]

The following discussion is closed: modified and kept billinghurst sDrewth 11:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The selection is from William Blake, annotations appear to be later additions and probably not public domain. Preserving the unproblematic content would be desirable. Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, you are right about the annotations. But text itself is public domain. So, it would be enough to take off the annotations. Dmitrismirnov (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I made some changes, moved it and noted a similar selection. Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


Constitution of Brazil[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Exported fully to Canadian Wikilivres:Constitution of Brazil.--Jusjih (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Text comes from (Search both for "ICL-Edition" that turns up in Articel 82. That website uses a non commercial copyright licence. 05:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Evidence that it came from that site? -- billinghurst (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The fact that they BOTH contain a parenthetical note in Articel 82 that the "ICL-Edition" doesn't contain a certain amendment. 13:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
If from a website with non-commercial copyright license, transwiki to Canadian Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The first url states
{ Editor's Note -

The raw text is based on a version presented to the public at The ICL edition has been revised with a translation by the Brazilian Embassy in London (32 Green Street, London W.1). Revisions have first been consolidated up to the amendments introduced by the National Congress of 1993. For adapting the text to our format, many changes and corrections had to be introduced. Article titles were added by Antonio Basto in 1996. A translation error in Art. 54 has been corrected in 1998. We have now incorporated the Constitutional Amendments No. 1/1992, 2/1992, 3/1993 4/1993 5/1995 6/1995 7/1995 8/1995 [ IN PROGRESS: and the Revision Constitutional Amendments No. 1/94 through 6/94 (Revision Constitutional Amendments being those passed in accordance with the special procedure provided for in Article 3 of the Temporary Provisions.) ] -- Dec 1999, A. Tschentscher }

Just an observation or two: We're discussing a very similar situation above (#Copyright Law of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea). This is very similar, i.e., the original could be tagged {{PD-GovEdict}}. In this case, however, there could be debate as to whether the translation is original/creative enough to have its own copyright. Sounds like there is just enough original work that I would personally be uncomfortable making a call without a copyright lawyer standing next to me. I guess Wikilivres is safest all around. —LarryGilbert (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Vanley kwong[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted
The text posted by the user was published in a 1987 newspaper, so I tag it as a possible copyvio.--Jusjih (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Even if it's in the public domain, it really belongs on 维基文库 since it's in Chinese.. --LarryGilbert (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
But if it's in the public domain, then the issues are more complex; we let users store quite a bit of miscellania in their user space, and this wouldn't strike me as a big deal. As it is, unless someone, most likely Vanley Kwong, jumps up and explains why it's under a free license, we're going to have to delete it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh! Suddenly I notice the "User talk" there. I feel dumb now. :-) --LarryGilbert (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My Life – Its Legacy and Message[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted – seems pretty open-and-shut.Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This was apparently published in India in 1988, and since the author died in 1990, its copyright there is in effect until 2051, I think (lifetime of author + 60 years). The user who uploaded this, Ranakapil, was active on Wikisource for less than a week in July 2007. Ranakapil was notified of copyright issues with another work by the same author, but never responded (see talk page). --LarryGilbert (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And since the U.S. doesn't use the rule of the shorter term, I think, it would be copyrighted here until 2061. --LarryGilbert (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Author:H. P. Lovecraft[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Exported the three works to Canadian Wikilivres and deleted them here.--Jusjih (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I have discovered some works by this author which are still in copyright according to the Cornell U.S. copyright classification website:

The website says works published between 1989 and 2002 that were originally produced before 1978 get a U.S. copyright term the greater of 70 years p.m.a. or Dec. 31, 2047.

This is a wide variant from countries that only have a 70 years p.m.a. term, which would be already expired.

I found the publication info at [1] which has a search feature for those who wish to confirm this info.

Scrooge 20:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)(ResScholar)

Insert standard rant against Disney here. :-) But I think those are in the public domain in Canada and thus could be moved to Wikilivres. They fall under a peculiarity of Canadian copyright law that relates to works published posthumously, but since they were published after the magic date of July 25, 1997 and he had died more than 50 years before that magic date, they apparently entered the public domain in 2003. See "Posthumous works" under "Duration" on this page by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. --LarryGilbert (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Migrate to Wikilivres I would agree with LG's interpretation and the cutoff dates under dot 2 (1997) or 3 (2002) make it hostable there. Can I say that US copyright law is like so weird bordering on comical or hysterical. billinghurst (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Aristophanes Scandal[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleteResScholar (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Graeculus and User:, who are apparently the same user, contributed the following Aristophanes texts:

I believe that all of them are the versions found at the Internet Classics Archive, conspicuous for the corruptness of the text in that they all terminate prematurely, and that they were copied and pasted to Wikisource with formatting touch-ups. However, this is not the scandal.

The provenance of the text was never made available at the Internet Classics Archive, but it was traced to a 1920s book called The Eleven Comedies which claimed to get its translations from a 1912 anonymous translation published by The Athenian Society of London. The year of anonymous publication is treated in Britain as the equivalent of the death year of the author in calculating the copyright term. So far not a problem in the U.S., right?

I looked a little closer at Plutus (Aristophanes) and noticed there were some extra stage directions not found in the copy of The Eleven Comedies at the Internet Archive (a site which is not in any way connected to the Internet Classics Archive). I did a Yahoo! search of a portion of the text and came up with a copy at Perseus Digital Library. Perseus said the text was edited by Eugene O'Neill, Jr. I did a search of this author and came up with a work called The Complete Greek Drama: All the Extant Tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, and the Comedies of Aristophanes and Menander, in a Variety of Translations, which was published in 1938.

Now here is the scandal. I looked up The Complete Greek Drama in the Stanford Copyright Renewal Database and found Renewal R379293 which gave a registration date of 23Jun38 and a renewal date of 18Jan66 by Random House for "N[ew] M[aterial]: preface, introduction, notes and glossary." American universities M.I.T. (Internet Classics Archive) and Tufts (Perseus Digital Library) should not be hosting this! Needless to say, neither should Wikisource. ResScholar (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You said you found the 1920s version on IA though, right? So we could easily replace? It's a lot easier to convince people to mass-vote for deletion if we know a replacement exists. Especially when it's a new/timid user's compendium, I'm hesitant to just say "nice try, deleted" unless we can say "but we've just updated it by removing some of the notes which were still copyrighted" or something similar. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 13:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
See below. ResScholar (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
There is one possible (but unlikely) out: Even though the copyright was registered and renewed, if the book happened to be published without a copyright notice in it, it did not meet all of its obligations for copyright protection at the time and thus would be in the public domain now. Otherwise, it doesn't fall out of copyright until 2034. --LarryGilbert (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Arguing against myself now, I've thought of a second possibility. Remember when I nominated Autobiography of a Yogi] here? There was a federal case that denied its copyright renewal. It occurred to me that this could be the same kind of situation. The judges in the 2000 9th Circuit federal case, Self Realization v. Ananda Church, explain the 1909 renewal law:
"The 1909 Act vested renewal rights in the author, if still living at the time the initial copyright term expired, or the author's next of kin or executor if the author was deceased. See 17 U.S.C. S 24 (repealed). The 1909 Act contained only four exceptions to this exclusive right of reversion. A copyright owner who was not the original author could renew copyrights in (1) posthumous works, (2) periodical, encyclopedic, and composite works, (3) works copyrighted by a corporate body (other than as an assignee or licensee of the original author), and (4) works made for hire."
If it can be shown that Random House failed to meet at least one of the requirements, its renewal can be dispensed with. ResScholar (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
It's renewed as a composite work; I don't see any reason to disagree with that. I'm not a huge fan of questioning renewals; it treated in a court of law as prima facia evidence of copyright, and it's more likely there's a copyright holder willing to disagree with our interpretation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
If you say so, I don't what they mean by composite. I felt I had to protect myself in case someone had a magic computer that found the results of individual copyright cases like they did with Autobiography of a Yogi. It also seems strange to me that Perseus would not have an obvious good reason to do what they're doing with the O'Neill book. They actually give bibliographic information about the book, too. By the way, addressing Larry Gilbert, there is a 1938 copyright notice in the book's WorldCat entry. I'm going to put "possible copyvio" notices on the works, but the prior versions will be available for a while. ResScholar (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
These plays by Aristophanes were among my first contributions, and, being unfamiliar with the system, I did not verify their copyright status correctly at the time. Since it seems that these plays do not meet the inclusion guidelines, I have no trouble with them being deleted. I have found replacements for Acharnians and Knights, Peace, Ecclesiazusae, and Plutus (1742, a more recent translation can surely be found.) Thesmophoriazusae is likely also available. I will start work on these immediately. (Speaking of which, I did not copy and paste them directly, I re-wrote them in Wikisource formatting code as a plain text file and then copied and pasted the code. This is why the history shows that some of these pages were created all at once.) unsigned comment by Graeculus (talk) .
Graeculus, don't blame yourself, these translations have been on the web for many years, and have fostered the impression they are in the public domain. However, if you don't wish to wait for more information to arrive to help us make a final decision, go right ahead. But since you implied you would like to see recent translations of these works, you may want to consider waiting and eventually using the original 1912 anonymous version by setting them up side by side and removing the new stage directions from the text, if it turns out we must presume the translations are copyrighted. The 1912 version can be found here at the Internet Archive. ResScholar (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I think these can be copied to Wikilivres under anonymous works published more than 50 years ago. Yann (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

They're not anonymous, though; the notes were done by Whitney J. Gates & Eugene O'Neill, Jr. according to the renewal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
And Whitney J. Oates was still around in 1968 (there's a typo in the record of his last name, obviously). ResScholar (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

COMPLAINT Oregon v. Morrissey et al.[edit]

The following discussion is closed: deleted billinghurst sDrewth 11:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
This page has been tagged for speedy deletion as "Clear copyvio as state works are not the works of the federal government". Can someone who knows this area please adjudge whether this should be speedily deleted, speedily declined, or brought here for discussion? Hesperian 23:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It may be a copyvio, but not a "clear" one to me. At the very least, the copyright box should be replaced because it's in no way a work of the U.S. Government if it comes from a state circuit court. --LarryGilbert (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, there was a House Bill 3091 that looks like it was intended to put all works by Oregon state agencies into the public domain. I'm still looking to see whether that was in fact enacted. --LarryGilbert (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to say that it looks like HB 3091 is in limbo. If it were up to me, I would say that we should treat State of Oregon works as copyrighted. I think there was a case recently that put the state laws (Oregon Revised Statutes) into the public domain, but court documents are obviously not the same thing. --LarryGilbert (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
You might want to take a peek at Scriptorium - Inclusion_question. There are some portions related to Oregon and the copyright of various Oregon state works. One section of Oregon law that also may be useful Chapter 183, §§ 183.355 thru 183.380. I'd re-post it but - ya' know - the whole copyright thing may apply. George Orwell III (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Neighborhood intellectual property stopping by. I am aware of no principle under which a complaint drafted by an agency of a U.S. State would fall into the public domain absent an express provision in effect releasing the State's copyright in that document. I am aware of no such provision in Oregon law, and in fact the state of Oregon has been fairly aggressive of late in asserting copyright ownership of its works. BD2412 T 21:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete it is not a government edict, and it is not US Gov work. No evidence that it is in the public domain and allowing reproduction. billinghurst (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. There’s a not-insubstantial argument that copying pleadings actually submitted in litigation is noninfringing conduct under the fair use doctrine, but fair use is excluded here by WS:COPY. Tarmstro99 (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii House Bill 444[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Deleted billinghurst sDrewth 11:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Is not a work of the federal government; state government works are not automatically in the public domain. Hekerui (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Did it pass into law? If it did, my understanding is that it would be then covered by {{PD-GovEdict}}. If not, then it may be the case that you mention. billinghurst sDrewth 22:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete: More specifically - it violates Hawaii's terms of use and linking policy It has moved from pending in 2009 to pending in 2010 so it has not become enacted law or statute as far as I can tell either. George Orwell III (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Shape of Things to Come[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Move to Wikilivres billinghurst (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Exported to Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
HG Wells book. Went to look for a scan of the work, not found, then from my quick further look, it seems to be a 1933 published work. billinghurst (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikilivres: Renewed in the US R278048-278049, 278051, 278050, 278052-278054. But Author:Herbert George Wells died 1946 and is clear for life+50 countries.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As stated on Talk:The Shape of Things to Come, the text is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence "Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Australia" by The University of Adelaide Library, see . And an excerpt from that work is on Wikisource at H.G. Wells on the Polish Corridor since 2006. --Matthead (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Australia is a life+50 country, so there's no one to stop them from slapping their copyright claims on Wells's work. This is still under copyright in the US and in the UK, and there's no evidence that Wells' estate has put it under a CC license. I've marked H.G. Wells on the Polish Corridor as a copyvio; I suspect we have a number of quiescent copyvios, and this one's existence seems to have been aided by the fact it doesn't seem to have ever been linked anywhere, especially not on Wells' page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Author:Herbert George Wells links many works of him which are already on WS. Many of them seem to have been published decades before the 1933 Shape of Things to Come, but the author is the same person. Many seem to be PD-1923, but what about e.g. A Slip Under the Microscope? --Matthead (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Things first published before 1923 are fine. If you're concerned about the copyright status of a particular story, one thing I do is stick a line or two into Google Books, which will often come up with volumes it was published in. In the case of A Slip, it was published in Thirty strange stories in 1898 and previously in the Yellow Book.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul[edit]

The following discussion is closed: move to WikiLivres if they wish to Exported to Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It's a 1927 work by a Scottish author who died in 1949, printed in Oxford. Not PD in the US. No license on the work page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
If no US license is found, I would like to take this article and its subpages to Canadian Wikilivres as 1949 death with non-posthumous publication qualifies for Canadian public domain. The Internet Archive is non-profit and non-commercial, so it may have some works in the last 20 years of US copyright based on the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, a way to deal with orphan works. If nothing changes, it can be brought back here in 2023.--Jusjih (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
You can, of course, but I'll note that only The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul/Pelagius has any text, and that's only a mostly-unproofread OCR dump. Unless someone at Wikilivres wants to work on it, I think we and they would be better off deleting it and restarting from a full scan and OCR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Works by Author:George Orwell[edit]

The following discussion is closed: move to WikiLivres if they wish to Jeepday (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Exported to Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I found this A Nice Cup of Tea, which would seem to be a copy vio as it was published in 1946. Then I found wikilivres:Nineteen_Eighty-Four which I just realized is not on the US server. According to Wikisource:Copyright policy "copyright laws applicable to Wikisource are primarily those of the United States of America", so maybe A Nice Cup of Tea needs to be moved? JeepdaySock (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I added the copyvio tag. billinghurst sDrewth

  • Delete/Move agree with JeppDay's commentary. billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Move/Delete change of scenery prefered over deleting :-


Golan v. Gonzalez[edit]

The following discussion is closed: moved discussion
Moved to Wikisource:Scriptorium.--Jusjih (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)