Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2010-08

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


The following discussion is closed:

kept with new license tag ResScholar (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand why this cant have the Edicts tag. Its becasue its not really an edict. Norwegian Copyright Act §9 states the following: "Laws, regulations, court decisions and other decisions by public authorities is without protection under this law. The same applies to proposals, reports and other statements relating to public governance, and are the responsibility of public authorities, publicly appointed council or committee, or published to the public. Similarly, official translations of such texts without protection under this law." what i can read here is that the documents released by the Norwegian Goverment released in to the public domain. If others agree, please make an license tag.--V0nNemizez (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

keep — billinghurst sDrewth 15:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep - This is a bilateral agreement between several nations. It is an Offical Doucument (government officials drafted & signed it) most likely causing some degree of legal effect or consequence in one or more of the signing nations. I believe Official Documents such as this one appears to be, are "inherently uncopyrightable in the United States". George Orwell III (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

speedy keep

... and we're back with another installment of "all laws are edicts but not all edicts are laws"

Here's is a case where a memorandum (possibly a MOU?) is proclaiming the treaty agreement(s) already in place and Ukraine's ascension to member status on the same level and commitment as the other signing parties. I say it's an official document even though it does not promulgate anything new into "Ukraine law" - their ratification of the treaty by whatever system they practice most likely did that, if at all. The recent Status of Forces Agreement between the U.S. and Poland is in the same vein, much like the SOFA with Iraq & the U.S. did the year before last (no Congressional ratification sought there either).

 Keep: Some representative of the U.S. (i.e. a Federal employee) signed it as a subordinate & charged as an Officer in the Executive, if not by the hand of the U.S. President himself.

The following discussion is closed:

keep — billinghurst sDrewth 15:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No idea why that would be marked as a government edict -- it's not. However the original text is PD-Old, so that is not an issue. Doesn't seem to have any info on where the translation came from though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

National anthems generally come about or supported by some Govt edict, though one would need to look at the enabling process to determine sufficiently. One would think that this must alsoşteaptă-te,_române! have an effect on putting such a work into the public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be an interesting question, if a copyrighted song was made a national anthem somewhere. But... I don't see how the lyrics of a song could be considered an edict, as it would have been a completely copyrightable work beforehand. Obviously the text of the law making it the national anthem would be OK, but the song itself... not sure. But yes, "normal" copyright would be pretty hard to enforce after that though. It's possible derivative works may still be disallowed. But, all that is moot here -- {{PD-old}} applies, as the author died in 1863. I changed the tag. No idea where the translation came from though; it is in a number of places on the web. Ironically the original composer was a translator himself... Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kept — billinghurst sDrewth 15
22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:

Speedy keep

  • Stated as official proclamation of a legitimate Government inside parliamentary premise.

The following discussion is closed:

speedy keep

 Comment: An author's Wikisource page, listing his or her works (in this case, the above For Freedom and Truth) is not an issue. I believe the license tag was placed there in error. Feel free to delete this listing as a matter of good housekeeping George Orwell III (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joint Statement of the BRIC Countries’ Leaders

The following discussion is closed:


 Keep This seems to me to be, while the weakest form of a treaty—an statement of shared understanding—it still should be classified as a treaty and thus an edict. ResScholar (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

Replaced with PD-GovEdict official translation ResScholar (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The text of this page is taken from a pdf at a law firm, and is linked there. I did a Google search and came up with two other law firms that hosted the same text. Two of them have copyright notices on their pages, and one of those has recently removed the page referenced on Google. The other one that has copyright notice looks like it was cut and pasted from the version at the originally linked law firm. Then there is a third search item from an on-line document marketing company that seems to have harvested the pdf from the internet; it shares the brief, informal, annotative commentary as well as the font, found at the first law firm.

I could ask this law firm where it got the document, but it probably wouldn't want to share its source. And if we did get it, we wouldn't necessarily be able to get a release from the translator.

On the same page of this law firm's webpage of free documents there is another, different English translation of practically the same material from Egyptian Copyright Law. I think it only lacks the legal preamble attached by the Egyptian legislature prescribing to what uses the executive branch should apply the law. It also just so happens to be already available at Commons (with the caveat that it probably only has a free license for its home country), by users who found it from second source.

And although its translator is unknown, its provenance can be traced back as a quasi-official document of the Egyptian government.

Here's the connection: The Commons translation, which is found at a third site, the World Intellectual Property Organization, was linked to on the United Nations UNESCO website as part of its collection of national copyright documents. According to UNESCO, this link was provided by the Egyptian Government itself.

For a few hours I had this provenance attached to the law firm page when I thought it was the same as the Commons document. But after I finish this, I will correct the error.

I am given to understand that translations of government documents can be copyrighted. But I am also inclined to draw the line once we discover that government to have made that translation an official one. Does anyone disagree?

If not, I move that we replace the non-provenanced version with the government-authorized one, that is, if there is no subsequent objection as to whether it is in fact "official" enough. ResScholar (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would agree on government-provided translations -- I think those fall under PD-GovEdict (and are often specifically listed as non-copyrightable in the copyright law of many countries, including it looks like Egypt's, which does not recognize copyright in "official documents" regardless of language). If it was given to WIPO, that would make it official I think (as I believe they only take submissions directly from governments). I would definitely use the WIPO and/or UNESCO text, if different than that third party's version. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much thanks for the confirmation, Carl. I made the switch. ResScholar (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The following discussion is closed:

delete, no permissions received to allow to keep — billinghurst sDrewth 03:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To the Bird by Hayyim Nahman Bialik , translated by Rachel Genussov and Eliyahu Ziffer

I have tried to start a conversation with the contributor and explain our requirements, though all that has occurred is the claims of release. As the author died 1934, I cannot put a lot of credence to that without further evidence. Anyone read Hebrew? -- billinghurst (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have asked several questions and I answered. The Encyclopedist (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Looks like we will need translation permissions for OTRS.-- billinghurst (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since I am not accustomed with the legal terms would you be so kind to put here a draft of the required permission and I will have the transcribers signed it. The Encyclopedist (talk) 08:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Instructions with a pattern letter for acknowledging a licensed release (permission), can be found at this location. Except the e-mail should be addressed to ResScholar (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Can we get an update on this? Was permission sent to OTRS? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I sent a permission to OTRS about 3 weeks ago. The Encyclopedist (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Encyclopedist, wrote me, when I inquired, and said they never got the permission verifications. I suggest you resend the verifications to them, making sure it is indeed addressed to ResScholar (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no permissions have been received, follow ups have not progressed, so moving this to delete. Leaving actual deletion for a couple of days in case this action promotes requisites.

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Having no copyright notice at for a 2010 work does not automatically release copyright restriction.--Jusjih (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modern statement that has no copyright tag to demonstrate that the work is in the public domain. Further, one may need to also consider that this meets our criteria of being a published work. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

deleted translation, kept commentary, discussion. But then commentary was deleted by User:Cygnis insignis ResScholar (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I traced this text to the Columbia Book of Quotations which cited "Marinetti: Selected Writings, ed. by R. W. Flint, 1972." And I searched the University of Pennsylvania copyright page Google search and found a record of copyright here on p. 3180 assigned on October 27, 1972 to R. W. Flint and Arthur A. Coppotelli.

But the record says the new material is "introd. & some translation" (emphasis mine). On the other hand there are no earlier appearances of this translation in Google books. This looks like it could be another "library run" book. ResScholar (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The text shows up in scads of books, but only since 1973. All of the ones I saw on Google Books though which bother to cite a source give the one you state, and explicitly state that Flint and Coppotelli (or sometimes just Flint, like here)) were the translators. The entry you found claims that the copyright is owned by the publishers (work for hire?) rather than the people involved though. The translation would appear to be under copyright, unless it can be shown it was published (with permission) without a copyright notice before 1989 -- which is unlikely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • delete as per evidence of ResScholar. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete as above. Unfortunately the other version I found, by James Joll (which doesn't source the translation as by Joll or otherwise) from 1960 at the IA has had its copyright renewed (RE-382-968). However, the language is very simple, so a Wikisource translation may be possible. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 02:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I deleted the restored page, the content was a header and Wikisource welcomes appropriate, freely licensed translations. Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

deleted ResScholar (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the work of Basil Dmytryshyn in Imperial Russia: A Source Book, 1700-1917, 1990 ed., pp. 307-, who translated it from the Complete Collection of the Laws of the Russian Empire, the second series, completed in 1884.

This is a Google search from the Source Book of the top of the page it's on. And 450 words later, Here is the bottom. You can't see the footnote, but GoogleBooks acknowledges the search text I typed in, where Dmytryshyn claims translator credit, is present on the page. I reconstructed parts of the text of the footnote from similar footnotes in different parts of the text. As you can see, Dmytryshyn adds his footnotes on the beginning page of his text, in case someone wants to argue the translator claim belongs to a second footnote for an end of a previous work hidden from view and prior in position on the page to the 450-word "Emancipation" text.

In the version at Wikisource, by the way, someone has substituted the word "farmers" for "agriculturists". And the reference on the page to McGraw-Hill refers to a 2000 CD-ROM title that was a kind of anthology of world history works that made use of Dmytryshyn's translation.

I don't think I have to show that this textbook from a large publishing company is copyrighted, that's how they and the author make their money.

Well I checked anyway at The 1978 to present copyright renewal search It's copyright 1967 and it has renewal #RE0000699043 from 1995. The record mentions new material as additions, so any 1990 edition additions (possibly this translation) along with any others before 1995 would have presumably been consolidated into this one 1995 renewal. ResScholar (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete 1990 is after 1989, so the US had signed the Berne convention and all publishing, copyright notice and renewal requirements had ended for new works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete case sounds solid to me. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

copyvio; author request ResScholar (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An possible copyright infringement of This Page. See the Talk Page for an apparent notice from the copyright owner. mr_pand (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wrote the copyright holder tonight in order to verify the exchange purported by Mikhail Valkov in which Mr. Bytewerk expressed his wish that his translation not be hosted here. ResScholar (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Randall Bytwerk confirmed to me by e-mail he does not wish to have his work reprinted in full. ResScholar (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

deleted ResScholar (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This Bertrand Russell work appears in Unpopular Essays (1950). I did some checking and it turns out the essay was written the same year as collection it appears in. This URAA candidate can't go to Wikilivres either because the author lived till 1970. ResScholar (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Delete I thought for a second that he was in the US at the time, but that was a little earlier, and the books WP lists as being published in the US then have been renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

deleted ResScholar (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The German Ideology

This work, originally by Marx, was translated in part by E. J. Hobsbawm, who was born in 1917. I see no indication that any of the translators have released this into the public domain or licensed it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One would assume that this work wasn't published first in the US, so it isn't coming into the classification of no copyright in certain years. That being the case (and that evidence is not produced either way) I am leading towards delete. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the date of publication? Yann (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete has a misleading reference to it in its Marx Engels Collected Works section, which is a 1975-2004 work. It's linked to from the Collected Works table of contents, but when you get to the work, it says the source of the transcription is from a different 1968 edition. This work is by Progress Publishers, a Moscow English-language publisher, which is known to at least sometimes copyright their works. According to BookFinder, the translations of The German Ideology are 1968 revisions of translations, the revisions accredited to Salo Ryazanskaya, of a 1938 edition published by Lawrence and Wishart. Both publishers are acknowledged in the Collected Works section as the source of the translations, so the 1975-2004 edition and the 1968 edition may be nearly identical. But regardless, the late date of the revised translation indicates it's a URAA restored work, even if the Soviet Union was a life-50 country. ResScholar (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

Salo Ryazanskaya was apparently very busy. In 1970 he also translated this work by Progress Publishers. This snippet from a 1971 Lawrence and Wishart publication shows this book is the same work from a publishers' arrangement, though he is not credited. This view shows a sample of the translation from the same book that matches our version. BookFinder has a number of the 1970 editions that state it is a first printing. The URAA restoration rationale is the same as that of above. ResScholar (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Holy Family

This is a 1975 Progress Publishers (Moscow) second revised edition of a 1956 translation by Richard Dixon. Apparently has a fair use rationale for using these texts. Both editions are URAA candidates. ResScholar (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Curve Ball from

It turns out that is not claiming fair use on these texts. Rather, they make the following (interesting) claim:

The Former U.S.S.R. did not abide by copyright laws until 1973, so works published in the U.S.S.R. before that date are public domain.

Does anyone know if this assertion has any legal status? The tit-for-tat nature of the rationale strikes me as bogus (and it doesn't apply to the 1975 The Holy Family anyway). ResScholar (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Soviet Union did have their own copyright law; as mentioned they did not join an international copyright treaty though until 1973 when they joined the Universal Copyright Convention. w:Copyright law of the Soviet Union has a very detailed account. While most material would have been published without a copyright notice, and thus PD in the United States, that would have all changed with the URAA restorations. By that time, the Soviet Union had broken up, and so the law in the successor nations needs to be looked into, the country which best applies to each work. Almost all of them had joined the Berne Convention by that time, and had retroactively restored copyright to 50 pma (including Russia), so that is the most likely line to look at. (Russia later extended to 70 pma, non-retroactively in 2004, and then retroactively in 2008, but those were after the URAA was applied and so would have no effect on U.S. status.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Carl, you have quite a breadth of knowledge as well a depth in copyright law. In the course of this job, I'm always picking up something new. Much thanks to you. ResScholar (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They also quote a statute which may be of general interest to this site:

Any second term subsisting on October 27, 1998 is extended an additional 20 years (i.e. applies to works published on that date in 1923 and later -- For a work renewed in 1952 (© 1924), it is restricted from the public domain until 2019).(Making the entire copyright restricted for 95 years from date of publishing) [Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act] (Public Law 105-298; aka 95 year rule)

They claim this means copyright registrations made before October 27, 1923 would have expired and would not have been eligible for the 20 year extension from 75 to 95 years. ResScholar (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyrights expire only on the following January 1 these days, so any work first published (or registered) anytime in 1923, and which had its copyright correctly renewed, was still under copyright on October 27, 1998 and thus had its copyright extended. Works published in 1922 or earlier had expired on January 1, 1998, and remained public domain. It is indeed that law which created the current {{PD-1923}} line; U.S. expirations were thus "frozen" for 20 years, and we are still inside that period. It's not October 27, 1923, but rather January 1, 1923. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes that's pretty basic stuff, but through its cutoff date not pertaining to any relevant date in prior law, the quoted edict fosters the impression there was in plain sight an exception of which somehow everybody failed to make use. Okay, just making sure we weren't being left out! ResScholar (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

no sign of publication, copyright too recent to have expired-Deleted ResScholar (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Work by Armenian poetess Shushanik Kurghinian who lived in the late 19th to the early 20th centuries. Translated by Tatoul Papazian in 2005 as reported at this website. ResScholar (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

deleted for reasons given ResScholar (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Builder of Deserted Hearth

The following discussion is closed:

delete; no evidence that it's in the PD [July 31, 2010]

Publication in unknown year, author died in 1961. I am unsure of its US license--Jusjih (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Significant numbers of works by this author have been identified as not having their copyright renewed (Author talk:Clark Ashton Smith link). I would suspect that this work is similar, though present no evidence either way. billinghurst (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proposed action in lieu of further information, I propose that we maintain the status quo, seeing that so many of the works are housed at WS. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the Eldritch Dark website, this particular work first appeared in a 1971 poem collection. If this posthumously published book was copyrighted by Smith's estate, it would still be in copyright today and would not have needed to have been renewed. According to this webpage some works are allowed on the Eldritch Dark website by permission of the estate, for "non-profit use" (emphasis mine). I think the Clark Ashton Smith author page needs to have its copyrighted material pruned off. ResScholar (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The following discussion is closed:

delete; no evidence that it's in the PD [July 31, 2010]

Same as above. Publication in unknown year, author died in 1961. Need a US license or delete.--Jusjih (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A search turned up OCLC:422830all editions, which I have requested by interlibrary loan. Looks like a compilation of previously published works; will check to see whether it includes info about when this one was first published. Tarmstro99 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that investigation yielded little of value. OCLC:422830all editions, Selected Poems by Clark Ashton Smith, published in 1971 by Arkham House of Sauk City, Wisconsin, includes an express copyright notice on the reverse of the title page: “Copyright 1971, by Mrs. Clark Ashton Smith.” The book seems to reprint a number of earlier collections of Smith’s work, some with their own separate introductory essays, but it does not provide prior publication information about any of them (except the collection “Ebony and Crystal,” published 1923). Not much help to us in identifying the current copyright status of Borderland (p. 314 of Selected Poems) or Builder of Deserted Hearth (p. 330), both of which are printed in a section entitled “Experiments in Haiku” with no prior publication date given. In light of the previously noted difficulties that this author apparently had in complying with the copyright renewal requirement, I’m inclined to vote weak keep. I would change my vote to “delete” if evidence should arise that these works were first published (posthumously) in Selected Poems in 1971, in which case they would be automatically renewed for a second term and remain under copyright until 2066. Tarmstro99 (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Various internet searches, this is the closest that I can find. billinghurst (talk)::
Delete. The way the website at that link lavishes attention on Smith's works, it looks like pretty conclusive evidence. At the very least they wish not to have the work free to be used for profit, as Wikisource expressly grants (see Builder of Deserted Hearth above). And that statement of intent is more personal and plainly expressed than what 99 out of 100 other estates bother to communicate. That's got to count for something. ResScholar (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adventure (Smith)

The following discussion is closed:

kept ResScholar (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC) This poem was first published in 1924 and the author died in 1961 so it is possibly a copyvio.--Longfellow (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Odds are very high that it is {{PD-US-no-renewal}}. According to this page, it was first published in the Auburn Journal, apparently a California newspaper, in 1924 and again in 1925. Someone, I think at the University of Pennsylvania, apparently went through the periodical renewal records, and found that no daily newspaper outside of New York renewed any copyright before 1945 issues.[1] The copyright renewals for periodicals are now online here. It's possible that the author separately renewed the poem, but if so, it should be in those renewal listings (I did not look). If it's not in there, then I think it is PD now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section may just contain one work, but I will add others if I find more.


Like one of his recently deleted works way on the top of this page, this translation of Baudelaire is reported to have been first published in Smith's Selected Poems (1971), a good argument for deletion. ResScholar (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Maker of Gargoyles

The Empire of the Necromancers

Both of these works first appeared in 1932 editions of Weird Tales. According to the Wikisource page for this periodical, all of the 1932 editions were both copyrighted and renewed. ResScholar (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Demon of the Flower

This first appeared in the December 1933 edition of Astounding Stories. Astoundingly, this magazine's copyright was renewed, February 6, 1961, renewal no. R270596. ResScholar (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For trivia buffs, it's now owned by Condé Nast Publications, who bought original publishers Street & Smith in 1961. ResScholar (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC) (correction: 1959. ResScholar (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)}Reply[reply]

Arguing against myself now, didn't a court case say that if there are heirs to the originator of the work, only they can renew it, not the publisher? If anyone knows off hand, let us know, otherwise I will do some checking. ResScholar (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read the Copyright Office Circular 15 and Copyright_Act_of_1976#.C2.A7_304._Duration_of_copyright:_Subsisting_copyrights Copyright Law § 304 (a) of 1976 Copyright Act and I'm still a bit confused. My best guess, based on those and some other stuff I've read, is that contributors to a magazine can renew their own material separately ("in the case of any other copyrighted work, including a contribution by an individual author to a periodical or to a cyclopedic or other composite work, the author of such work, if still living, or the widow, widower, or children of the author, if the author be not living, or if such author, widow, widower, or children be not living, then the author's executors, or in the absence of a will, his or her next of kin shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright") but if they don't it will be renewed with the periodical ("in the case of [...] of any periodical, cyclopedic, or other composite work upon which the copyright was originally secured by the proprietor thereof [...] the proprietor of such copyright shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work"). However if the copyright was not originally owned by proprietor, if first publication rights alone were sold, then I don't believe they could renew the copyright (source: accumulation of junk knowledge). I know that the Weird Tales files that would tell us what Weird Tales bought the copyright for and what they just bought first publication rights for have been lost.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We'll never know. If we ask the heirs, they'll say "we already have a preferred public domain outlet on the internet; why are you trying to chisel away at the commercial restrictions we'd like to place on all of them?" And if we ask Condé Nast, we'll get a form letter, if anything: "the people who would have been able to answer your query have left the company, and the records that contained that information are not at our disposal." It's nice that our contributors like to have a complete collection of their favorite author here, but from time to time they're going to have to do their own legwork if they want that. ResScholar (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question may be even thornier. Apparently, renewal rights will automatically be "vested" in the publisher if the author is still alive when the initial 28-year term expires; if the author dies before then though, publishers must get the rights re-transferred from the heirs, otherwise their renewal has no effect. Apparently there was an interesting question if the author died after the renewal application was filed but before the January 1 date where the initial term expired; it seems as though court cases went both ways. The 1992 copyright law clarified that the rights vested upon the renewal application, but not sure that would affect things before that time. There is a Patry article on it here giving the history, and another article here, both written because of Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publishing, LLC (a 2007 decision). Some earlier cases on the basic "vesting" principle are mentioned here. Naturally, we have this situation here -- I think the author died after the renewal was filed, but before the first term completely expired on January 1, 1962. Thus, if authors die before the renewal applications are made, it appears that such renewals do not serve to renew the copyright in the original author's actual text, unless rights have been explicitly re-assigned by heirs (difficult to prove). But if the original author is still alive, then it would appear that publisher's renewals are enough to keep copyright going, although (per circular 3) it may be considered to have an "erroneous name" on the copyright notice thus limiting infringement penalties if they got permission from the publisher. On balance... I'd guess delete on this one. Not valid for Wikilivres until 2012. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Aftermath of Mining Days

Berries of the Deadly Nightshade

Basin in Boulder

Bed of Mint

Boys Rob a Yellowhammer's Nest

Boys Telling Bawdy Tales

All six of these are listed as having first publication in Selected Poems (1971) as well.

I do believe that's all of them. ResScholar (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)}}Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

deleted ResScholar (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC) I traced this work to a Reocities website which gave its source as Bertrand Russell's Best, Robert E. Egner, editor, which was copyrighted not once, but three times, 1981 and 1984. (I guess they didn't get it right the first time.) ResScholar (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither did I! It's 1984 and 1987. And you have to go to new search and type in "Bertrand Russell's Best" to view it. ResScholar (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

deleted ResScholar (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC) It's a poem, unknown translator, by a Chinese author 1964–1989.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete ResScholar (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC) (copyrighted foreign works not in the public domain before 1996 get life+70 treatment) ResScholar (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

speedily deleted As far as I can tell, earlier attempts to add this work to WS were cited for CopyVio and eventually blanked or deleted twice already.[2] (the 'Early Years' subpage specifically)

This latest addition is a near word-for-word take on a 2007 book condensing the original biography attempted above here that has been parsed even further on various blogs (search results here) within the last 2 or 3 years. George Orwell III (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, George. ResScholar (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

deleted. ResScholar (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC) This translation of Canadian poet Émile Nelligan was made by Canadian poet and translator George Johnston (1913-2004) circa 1960. The snippet matches our text. ResScholar (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • delete from the facts as laid out by ResScholar, in lieu of any contradictory information — billinghurst sDrewth 04:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The following discussion is closed:

Williams translation deleted, Graves translation kept in 1905 edition. ResScholar (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC) This Wikisource page consists of three different translations of this Welsh song, and it is the third one that likely has the copyright. this page from National Anthems of the World (1975) shows some of the lyrics through snippet view. And this second search shows it was translated by W. S. Gwynn Williams (1896-1978).Reply[reply]

Williams owned a publishing company which shows a publication date for this work as 1946 or later. This webpage lets you search for the title "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau" which shows three versions of the work in three different years, the earliest being 1946. It's conceivable he may have translated an earlier version before 1923, when he was publishing a Welsh music magazine, but the Internet Archive doesn't carry it, and like the point I brought up in The Coffee Cantata, we can't do a good search for sheet music either.

So in short, I think we have to presume this is a post-1923 work while still under copyright in its home country. ResScholar (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I deleted the third translation. New problem. The second translation is a version by A. P. Graves (1846-1931). I found a copy of it in A Book of Manx Poetry, 1913. Unfortunately the 1913 version is different from the one here, so the one here might be a post-1926 work. The one here can also be found in an Oxford history of Great Britain. The GoogleBooks view doesn't show every page, and the acknowledgement page for the copy of Graves' translation "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau" is missing. It's a fairly common work, if anyone wants to take the two-minute "Worldcat wait" and go to their local library. But there may not even be an acknowledgement page there.
I suggest we save up some of these works found in books listed elsewhere on the WS:COPYVIO page, and then do a "library run" to a large library. Or if nobody's interested we can just delete them after a number of months. Either way, in the meantime they will be hidden away and with a warning notice on the page. ResScholar (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can we just replace our version with this 1913 one?--Longfellow (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be the logical default decision if no one is interested in my suggestion. ResScholar (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Graves translation appears to be the same as the one in this 1905 book, no? Or are you talking about the literal translation? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes the Graves translation. Except for the phrase "precipice proud" instead of "precipice", it's a match! Excellent! If no one has objections by July 24, I will add the missing word and credit Carl's source. Thank you, Carl. ResScholar (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

removed Program, restored unaltered version of prosecutor's translation of 25 points ResScholar (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC) This source document served as an explanation of the aims of the Nazi party for public consumption. I found a source for the 25 points; it was translated by the Office of United States Chief of Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality in 1946. The reference at the bottom refers to an earlier, deleted translation.Reply[reply]

However, the whole Program displayed below the 25 points, which contains a third translation of the 25 points, is probably a modern translation; the best copy of it comes from a modern-day pro-Nazi website, and it's not at Google Books, just on various internet forums. So the translation is subject to copyright. There's a copy at the Internet Archive of a different translation of the whole program, but that translation is probably subject to copyright as well; being printed in 1932, with Germany having a life plus seventy years term, the work would have still been in copyright in 1996, and thus eligible for URAA restoration.

So I nominate the lower portion of this page for deletion. ResScholar (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if it is the case here, but there is a URAA exemption for captured German WWII material (which would have then flowed through the Alien Property Custodian's office) where the copyright would today be owned by a governmental entity (and the German government would be the successor to NSDAP-owned material I would think). Those specific works were not restored. I don't know if this one meets that criteria though. Modern translations wouldn't, obviously. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I thought the U.S. simply got to keep the Alien Property! That was my rationale for keeping the 25 points. Thank you for straightening out the copyright maze yet again, Carl. This second part, is no unengaged translation, either, the translator, or a later editor, liked Hitler's policy of dehumanizing Jews. So my nomination is really deletion with extreme prejudice. But that leaves the 1932 Internet Archive translation. The translator is Edgar Trevalyan Stratford Dugdale (1876-1964) who was British not German (and apparently a Zionist). His copyright wouldn't expire till far in the future in most every life plus country, so even if it has a URAA exemption that fact probably prevents us from hosting it. ResScholar (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is a URAA exemption, that means that copyright was not restored in the U.S., so it would be OK under U.S. copyright law (and therefore for us). (The UK has something similar actually; they "extinguished" the copyright on a lot of that type of material, which apparently was not revived when they retroactively restored their "expired" copyrights). The country of origin though would be Germany (first published there) regardless of the nationality of the authors, and it would still likely be copyrighted there. But, we go by U.S. law only. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I was clumsily trying to say was that even if the original (of the full document) had that exemption and was copyright-free, the 1932 (Internet Archive) translation would still be under copyright because it was by a British National, whose work would have still been copyrighted in 1996. Or are you saying this translation could have been scooped up by the Alien Property Office as well? But by my understanding, the 1943 25-points Prosecutor's Office translation is still up in the air because the original may not have received the exemption. So unless someone wants to pick up the phone and do a research study, I would have to vote "delete" as well on this upper part due to lack of evidence of this exemption. ResScholar (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the translation was published by the Nazis, which appears to be the case, and was "captured", then yes, it still may apply. Nationality of the authors is irrelevant, as is the language it was printed in. However one thorny bit of the URAA exemption is that the copyright needed to be owned by a governmental entity and not individuals; usually in German law I think the individual technically still owns the copyright even if most of the economic rights have been signed away. On the other hand, that has not stopped the German government from claiming copyright in most all Nazi films -- including Triumph of the Will I believe, which was mostly done by Leni Riefenstahl, but was ruled as Nazi-copyright-owned by their Federal Supreme Court in 1969 I believe, and thus owned by the German government today. I would think the 25 points itself would come under that; that appears to be group-authored, and if used in the Nuremberg Trials, then almost certainly captured as well. Not nearly as sure about the rest, particularly when credited to individuals, but the status is at best messy if printed as an official Nazi document. Most of my knowledge comes from articles here and here. (If the translation was done by the prosecutors, it would be PD-USGov anyways I would think.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The German Wikipedia article on that publishing house says it was the Nazi publishing house, and that its copyrights had been assigned to the state of Bavaria. So to summarize:

  • The 1932 (or earlier) original Program of the NSDAP must have gone through the Alien Property Custodian's office and to Bavaria, and would thus receive exemption from copyright under URAA restorations (not copyrighted in the U.S.).
    • the new translation of it is copyrightable in the U.S. (as well as indecent);
    • the 1932 translation is "at best messy" as you put it (especially when the copyright page doesn't describe who received the copyright) so reasonable doubt it is PD in the United States;
    • The 25 points in the original, for a long time the central platform of the Nazi party, was "almost certainly" captured material (even if you don't count it as part of Program of the NSDAP, which definitely was)(not copyrighted in the U.S.); [According to the Office of the Prosecution of Axis Criminality, the "25 points" was directly translated from a 1941 edition in a book published by the Nazi publishing house. ResScholar (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)]Reply[reply]
      • the 1943 Prosecutor's Office's translation of it would be PD-USGov
      • the 1961 translation in Hitler and Nazism (from a prior edit) was renewed in 1989, and is copyrighted. ResScholar (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More or less, yes. The 25 points would seem to be a group-authored NSDAP work, and predated the "Program of the NSDAP" book anyways, where the NSDAP owned the copyright, and I think would almost definitely fall under the URAA exemption (which, by the way, was aimed specifically at preventing the hiding of Nazi material through copyright games). And the translation would be PD-USGov apparently, so I would think that can stay. If the 1932 book copyright was considered owned by the NSDAP, then quite possibly it (and the translation) would also be fine. German law though tends to favor giving copyright to individuals, and both the author and translator are named, so there is pretty reasonable doubt there. [The translation would also fall under German law; it was first published there.] Later translations would be copyrighted, yes. A pre-1964 U.S. translation would have needed to be renewed, but it looks like it was. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Carl, once again you have guided us (or me at least) once again by giving definition to the boundaries in the murky areas of copyright law. A special thanks to you. ResScholar (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

replaced with public domain translation. ResScholar (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC) This is a translation of the Operation Barbarossa orders (Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union). I traced its first appearance on the internet to a GeoCities website page which began in 1997 and had a Copyright notice that same year. There is a PD-USGov, but incomplete translation at the Library of Congress in Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression Volume 3, pp. 407-9 [caution: link on page is to a PDF file]. ResScholar (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

Moved to Wikilivres: "Mystic Treatises (Isaac of Nineveh)" and "Index:Mystic Treatises (Isaac of Nineveh)" ResScholar (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC) At Index:Mystic treatises (Isaac of Nineveh) the work states that it was translated in 1923, which unfortunately, is not before 1923 to qualify for {{PD-1923}}. On Index:Mystic treatises (Isaac of Nineveh) it states {{PD-release}} which is not supported on the page, and would probably would need to be supported by an OTRS process. There insufficient pages available to know whether it was copyright labelled or not. billinghurst sDrewth 15:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you unable to read? This work was never published in the United States, but in the Netherlands! Therefore the United States copyright law hasn't any validity! --Moros (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
see also wikipedia:de:Arent Jan Wensinck (the translator). --Moros (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He can read just fine. The way international copyright treaties work is that this work in the United States (which is the law that covers Wikimedia) is protected by American copyright law, as part of a multilateral agreement between the Netherlands, the US, and many other nations. The law of the Netherlands has no force in the US, except that given it by US law. Regardless of Netherlands law, this is in copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh what a brave new world! F*ck the United States! May be a war against this f*cking state!--Moros (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, the Netherlands does the exact same thing, except where the US gives Dutch works the same respect as American works, the Netherlands ends the copyright on American works (that would be under copyright under Dutch law) the day American copyright on that work ends. But hey, these differences are worth going to war over, aren't they?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are swings and roundabouts. We are able to host any pre1923 work no matter what year the author died, under the same law. Just again demonstrates the difference between legal and just. billinghurst sDrewth 22:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The translator (Arent Jan Wensinck) died in 1939, so it can be copied to Wikilivres. Yann (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

deleted, moved to Wikilivres ResScholar (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC) German author w:Erich Knauf (1895 - 1944) and composer w:Werner Bochmann (1900 – 1993) mean this is likely to still be covered by copyright. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is just the lyrics, so the composer of the music wouldn't matter as that is a separate copyright (only if we had an actual audio recording or something). But if the lyrics author died in 1944, then yes, same problem. U.S. copyright would last until 2037. No idea if wikilivres takes content like this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

moved to Wikilivres ResScholar (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC) The same problem as in this case: Archive: On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. On the discussion page it is claimed that the copyright was never renewed. Can someone check this information? --D.H (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wasn't renewed that I could find, but that is irrelevant. It was published in London in 1923, and since it was still under copyright in the UK in 1996 (translators died in 1946 and 1957), then the URAA restored the U.S. copyright, which will expire on Jan 1, 2019. It looks like that other one was moved to wikilivres; same possibility with this one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Worldcat came up with a number of 1923 editions published by Dover (founded in 1941). I'm willing to accept that Dover engaged in a bit of time travel here. Besides that warning as to the quality of library sources, I think I'm going to have to go with you as to the URAA restoring the copyright. George Barker Jeffery died in 1957, but I can't find who W. Perrett is, or when he might have died.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Dover edition is here on Google Books (limited preview); a frontispiece says it is from 1952 and is a straight reprint (with permission) of the 1923 edition, published by Methuen and Company, Ltd. in 1923. W Parrett is Wilfrid Parrett, and in the link to the related, archived discussion above, there is someone saying he died in 1946. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]