Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2018

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2018, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Kept

1932 Royal Christmas Message

The following discussion is closed:

kept as Crown Copyright

Let's start tearing through some of these No license documents. Is this Crown Copyright? If it's not, I can't see any way to keep it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Easily could be. In those days, Crown Copyright was anything created by or on behalf of the Crown, or *published* by or on behalf of the Crown. That could take over a lot of normal copyrights. It has only been 1989 since they've had something similar to the U.S. "in the course of their duties". Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Prosfilaes (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Constitution of the Principality of Sealand

The following discussion is closed:

kept as PD-EdictGov —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Presumably, {{PD-EdictGov}} only applies to foreign governments that are recognized by the USA. In that case, since the Sealand website only grants permission for free personal use,[1] this document does not adhere to our copyright policy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that it covers local governments as well, I don't think "recognized" is a good model. E.g. be it in Georgia or South Ossetia, Tskhinvali is still a city with a city government of the same practical and probably formal legitimacy. I'd say, as a matter of public policy, that any organization that asserts itself as a government gets its edicts deprived of their copyright. One could argue for a colorable claim to governmenthood, but I'd say the public policy principle is as strong for South Ossetia as for Lichenstein. Sealand is to the lower margin of colorable claim, but I'd still say it falls under this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 KeepI support Prosfilaes position and will await WMF's thoughts if a DMCA ever arrives. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Chapter 8 of Traffic Signs Manual.

The following discussion is closed:

kept — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Being-

• Index:UK_Traffic_Signs_Manual_-_Chapter_8_-_Part_1_(Traffic_Safety_Measures_and_Signs_for_Road)._Designs_2009.pdf
• Index:UK Traffic Signs Manual - Chapter 8 - Part 2- Traffic Safety Measures and Signs for Road Works and Temporary Situations) - Operations 2009.pdf and associated pages.

In reviewing the same issue as with the TSGRD 2016 arose, namely the inclusion of non OGL content, in this instance the former Highways Agency logo, It's also been over 6 months since attempts were made to contact the relevant contact within "Highways England" with no response. Therefore as the majority contributor on this, I am requesting deletion on the following grounds :-

• It's not been possible to confirm with the documents authors (nominally Highways England) what is and is not OGL in the relevant document.
• As the relevant document contact never responded, it has not been possible to obtain reasonably high quality version of vector artwork used in these volumes rendering them incomplete.
• Whilst the text of these works is largely complete, said text is useless without the accompanying diagrams, so it could not be described as a 'faithful' reproduction, even though it has been made in good faith.
• These chapters do not seem to have been transcluded yet.
• The information in these volumes are now considerably outdated, (It's appreciated that of itself isn't grounds for deletion given that Wikisource's primary function is to hold historical "source" documents.)

The underlying PDF's, along with a subsequent update covering the changes in TSGRD 2016 is still on the relevant gov.uk page so it's removal here will not result in a loss of resource.

A courtesy DR will be filed at Commons for the underlying PDF. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe sligtly OT, but if the documents are OGL-licensed do they fit m:ToU 7. c) CC-BY-SA-3.0 license requirement for texts uploaded to Wikimedia projects? If no, maybe the OGL-licensed content should be deleted as ToU infridgement? Ankry (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

OGL is fine, see meta:Open Government Licence. BethNaught (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@BethNaught: could you be more precise, please?

• Is m:Open Government Licence an official WMF position that overrides m:ToU, or
• Is OGL fully compatible with CC-BY-SA-3.0, so OGL-licensed content can be treated as CC-BY-SA-3.0 licensed, or
• I misread the ToU 7.c and it does not apply for Wikisource content for some reason that you know and I do not?

BTW, if you say that CC-BY-SA-3.0 license limitation is stupid, I fully agree. But it is an existent rule. Ankry (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

m:OGL asserts that OGL is compatible with CC BY. CC BY is compatible with CC BY-SA. However, digging deeper:

• OGLv1 says "These terms have been aligned to be interoperable with any Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which covers copyright, and Open Data Commons Attribution License, which covers database rights and applicable copyrights." So we can go with CC BY-SA 3, fine.
• OGLv2 and OGLv3 state "These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0". I believe, although I am definitely not a lawyer, the CC BY 4 is compatible with CC BY-SA 3. But in any case, the WMF legal team are planning to convert Wikimedia wikis to CC 4 licenses, which would resolve the issue. BethNaught (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Per a DfT response obtained this morning, the Commons DR was withdrawn.. I will now wait for OTRS to provide confirmation of that response.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Tolstoy on Pascal

The following discussion is closed:

kept, no sign of renewal —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The work seems to be part of the Complete Works of Tolstoy/Tolstoi/Tolstoï (see work talk page), though the volume is not metioned. I have been unable to determine which vol. though it states that it was published after 1923, though not whether it is a first or later edition. It would be great if someone caould work out which vol the work came. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The reference for the text "Pascal" is: "The complete works of Lyof N. Tolstoï : Patriotism, Slavery of our times, General articles, New York: Carlton House, 1928, pages 382-390, - "copyright 1899, Thomas Y. Crowell & Co; copyright 1927, Nathan Haskell Dole; published 1928, Thomas Y Crowell; "Printed in the United States of America". There is no mention of any "volume" although indicated as "The complete works...". It is written on the cover of the blue book "Tolstoi's essays on life" (with the golden image of a man like the thinker by Rodin on a red background) and "World's great thinkers". AB, Qc —unsigned comment by 24.50.79.184 (talk) .

The copyright of 1927 is the relevant component for Dole's translations who died 1935. We need to know whether the work's copyright was renewed or not, as being copyright after 1923 makes it a different beast. The translations of Crowell that were published prior to 1923 with the 1899 works are in the public domain, it is the post 1899 works in the edition that have the other date. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I can see

• the work here though cannot see a full text from here
• search for renewals of Dole for Tolsto~ which doesn't show any particular result, though shows other works by Dole of Tolstoi's

— billinghurst sDrewth 01:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I can also see a copy of the work at Hathi Trust. If we think that it is not copyright, a copy would be useful so that the this chapter of the work can be moved in situ. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If this remark from the preface (p. viii) may help; "The translations in the present volume are due to several hands, but a large number of them have been made by Mr. Aylmer Maude of England who was a personal friend of Count Tostoï's and has been for years in immediate touch with his industrial, religious, and social activities. Many of the articles thus furnished have been from sources otherwise unattainable. N.D.H." - Thus Alymer Maude could be the translator of "Pascal" (1906). AB, Qc

Qc huh. Aylmer Maude doesnt appear to have any renewals in his name either, but wouldnt his post-1923 copyrights in the UK have been extended in the US due to URAA. Brain hurts. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

 Keep; based on the above there is no sign of renewal for this work. There's a scan of it available here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Eye of Argon

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, no sign of copyright renewal. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Index:The Eye of Argon.djvu was first published in the fanzine Osfan #10, 1970, and the author is still alive. I have a later published copy, and this copy bears a copyright claim. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Our scan is sadly deficient in all the surrounding material. There's basically three questions: was Osfan #10 published (it looks like yes), did it have a copyright notice (the scan is too deficient to tell), and did it have permission of the author (again, the scan is too deficient to tell, and it's possible the printing is not clear on the matter.) What does the copyright notice on the published copy say?--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Having read https://ansible.uk/misc/eyeargon-intro.html , apparently the author is not still alive; he died in 2002. I get the impression that Osfan #10 was a legit publication, and thus the main question was whether it had a proper copyright notice or not. Given that it's very rare, and what we have of it is likely what we'll be able to get, it's hard to tell.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This transcript from a later Osfan issue says there was no copyright notice in the later issue; this work has more info about the publication. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all I get for the latter is "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book."--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The author went to the David Paskow collection at Temple University in Philadelphia to see a copy of the zine. There is no year indicated on the volume (which may also be another indication of no copyright notice). There are illustrations interspersed but not by Theis. The last two pages of the original were missing. Thais did deliberately submit the work as a sincere effort, and was a good sport afterwards about the so-bad-it's-good opinion that people had of it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

We've got a partial copy of the zine on Commons, linked from the top, and I'm comfortable saying that it's {{PD-US-no notice}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Keep based on the above research — billinghurst sDrewth 04:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: EncycloPetey (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

UK works published in the UK before 1923

The following discussion is closed:

kept, pre-1923 is always PD in USA

I've recently been transcribing articles that appeared in the 1922 issues of The English Historical Review, a scholarly journal which was published (I believe) solely in the UK. There are also a number of other works published in the UK but not in the US which I'm interested in transcribing. My question is: for the purposes of Wikisource, are they (or any other UK works published before 1923) public domain automatically or do some other rules apply because they were never published in the US? I didn't find our help page particularly helpful in this respect, so any advice would be appreciated. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC).

Actually, I've just checked and the publisher details on the front cover state:

"Longmans, Green & Co,

59 Paternoster Row, London

New York, Bombay and Calcutta"

Does this indicate that the work was also published in the US? —Noswall59 (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC).

Everything published before 1923 is automatically in the public domain in the USA, regardless of where it was or was not published, and can therefore be hosted on English Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that's great – thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC).

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"Rubicon" Address by South African State President PW Botha, August 15, 1985

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, and tagged with {{PD-SA-speech-1996}} to make copyright status clear.—Tarmstro99 16:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This work has been created twice by 21pjohnstone (talk • contribs), with the second occasion being annotated with the claim

“

his work was created and first published before 1 January 1996 in South Africa and is in the public domain there because it is a speech of a political nature or a speech delivered in the course of legal proceedings. According to the Copyright Act, 1978, § 12 (8) (a), "No copyright shall subsist [...] in speeches of a political nature or in speeches delivered in the course of legal proceedings."

”

1978 South Africa Copyright Act is at http://www.nlsa.ac.za/downloads/Copyright%20Act.pdf, the cite paragraph says

No copyright shall subsist in official texts of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or in official translations of such texts, or in speeches of a political nature or in speeches delivered in the course of legal proceedings, or in news of the day that are mere items of press information.

If we accept the proposal, we will need to amend the text in Template:PD-South Africa for clarity. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to object to their reasoning. Go ahead and improve the template, or make a separate one for political exceptions as is often done in these cases. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

So what part of the copyright act does this fall under? The Wikipedia article is a little light, but according to Google translate's version of the German Wikipedia article, this was a speech given at a meeting of the National Party. I didn't think that political party meetings were considered 'legal proceedings'. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Or 'speeches of a political nature'. Having read it, I'd say it falls under this and retract my claim. However §12(8)(b) does say:

The author of the speeches referred to in paragraph (a) shall have the exclusive right of making a collection thereof

... which seems mildly contrary to what we're trying to do. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

We're not making a collection of just Botha's speeches, so I don't think we have an issue. Secondly, the right of collection given in the law is technically indepedent from the copyright in this work in particular. A selection and arrangement copyright is separate from the copyrights of the contained items; that the law gives an author that right should not be relevant to the copyright of the individual works. The only question is if Wikisource, by its very nature, counts as a violation of that separate right. To me, "collection thereof" means a collection of just his works, not any collection which contains some along with many others. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that the problem is that we expect works hosted here to be usable for any purpose without restriction (besides attribution and sharealike), and so the restriction against using the work in a collection of just Botha's speeches may put the work afoul of our copyright policy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It says that there's no copyright in the work, so the URAA wouldn't restore the copyright. The right of collection wouldn't matter under US law, so it should be fine for the English Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 16:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The Status Quo in the Holy Places

The following discussion is closed:

kept —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

As discussed at Talk:The Status Quo in the Holy Places this is out of copyright due to UK Crown Copyright expiring 50 years post publication. A copyvio tag was recently added for reasons I am unaware of. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

 Keep, the evidence provided on the linked talk page supports a conclusion that the work is permissible under {{PD-UKGov}}. Tarmstro99 23:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Deleted

Index:Handbook of Nature Study.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not a 1911 edition as Internet Archive claimed, but 1939 revision, by un-named writers. Bringing it here so further comment before the work is progressed too far. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Not the 1911 original but, a 1939 revison for which a renewal record was found (R404916) - https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/catalog?utf8=%E2%9C%93&forward=home&exhibit_id=copyrightrenewals&search_field=search&q=Handbook+Of+Nature+Study, Scans nominated for deletion at Commons.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunate error caused mainly by the uploader relying on the IA metadata, which gave 1911 as the date. Has been discussed on IRC, result of which is the Divj file has now deleted from commons and the correct 1911 scan has been sourced (I have not seen it yet) by Zppix, who also uploaded this one. Some cleanup needed as work was started on it. Arthur Kerensa (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleted at Commons at ShakespeareFan00 request Platonides (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy delete as uploader, i have the 1911 oringinal now! Please delete to make way! Zppix (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be deleted. Just upload to Commons with the same name and then refresh the Index: and things will be fine. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

There was however the issue of the Page:'s, currently marked for speedy. These would need to be deleted to allow a clean start on a different edition.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Once the file has been uploaded and the Index refreshed, then I will deal with those pages appropriately. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. 23:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Index:Wikipedia – The Missing Manual.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

deleted; excluded by WMF TOS and not rectified via OTRS —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No evidence of GFDL release in document. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

In addition the source listed seems to be have no indication of what the license on ANY of the e-books it's holds are.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The work was originally published with copyright notice in 2008. As mentioned in w:Wikipedia – The Missing Manual, On January 26, 2009, O'Reilly announced that the content of the book was being released under a free license compatible with Wikipedia. This license can be seen from the TOC at w:Book:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. Hrishikes (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there a ticket number at OTRS for that release? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Press release linked from Commons, Thanks. Now pagelisted. Project for December anyone? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

See related discussions: WS:PD#Wikipedia- The Missing Manual and #Deletion of all GFDL-only works —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: This item was specifically donated to Wikipedia for hosting and further editing by WP contributors. In view of the further editing by WP proviso, the license can be deemed to have extended to CC. In such a scenario, is not Wikisource automatically entitled to host it? Hrishikes (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

That's the question. If the Manual has been edited to create further editions, does that retroactively alter the license on the first edition, which is what we are seeking to host? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

But the first edition was donated by the publishers for WP editing, isn't it? See the press release. Accordingly, the license of the first edition got altered, so that WP could host and edit it. Hrishikes (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the work may have been OTRS-ed to allow it to be hosted despite not being eligible for relicensing under CC; see w:Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 7#Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I've posted a request for follow-up at w:Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard#Help: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

... and it was archived without any response. Figures. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Garassyz, Bitarap, Türkmenistanyn Döwlet Gimni

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

This ancient page has no license, either for the original work or the translation. The translation may have come from Wikipedia, but that doesn't absolve us from correctly attributing its source, and Turkmenistan is a new nation, so the original might well still be under copyright. (There's also some questionable recent changes which should be checked if this is kept.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the original lyrics were by w:Saparmurat Niyazov, who had references to himself in there, which were changed by the government after he died (along with deleting a couple verses and reordering others it looks like).[2] If the lyrics are part of national law, then {{PD-EdictGov}} might cover the original. Not sure where the translation came from though. I do find hits in this 2005 book... apparently published by the "State Pub. Service Turkmenistan". If that was an official translation of a "law".... PD-EdictGov might cover that too ;-) It's just snippet view, but the translation appears to be almost identical to the translation of the original we have on Wikipedia (though with a couple of differences... Turkmenistan, light and song of soul, Long live and prosper for ever and ever instead of Forever, the light and song of the soul, Long live and prosper, Turkmenistan!. That last one seems to point to a slightly different translation, though the rest seems there word for word. Also appear to have some hits in this 2001 book (snippet view which doesn't even show the snippets), and those also seem to be the same as in this 2005 book (preview mode). The translation would not appear to be directly from Wikipedia though -- seems like they are all slight modifications of some common source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like the w:Ruhnama is the source of the translation; it's definitely an official translation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

http://www.nationalanthems.info/faq.html#copy says "Please note that permission has been granted for all the anthems on this site to be used by anyone for any purpose (except the handful marked © to various individuals, noted above) for either educational non profit or commercial for profit." and they have a little more about CC at http://www.nationalanthems.info/faq.html#use . On http://www.nationalanthems.info/tm.htm they have the same Turkmen lyrics and English translation, and has "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License." in the footer. Personally I feel that is (barely) enough evidence, at least for the translations, if we do list them and their licensing information. If it isnt correct, we have someone to blame. ;-) However we can go one better, and open a line of communication with them (contact names, and form available also from the faq), to find out the finer copyright details of the various anthems they have. Could be a good joint project -- they have lots of scans, which we can import (not necessarily to English Wikisource) and validate the transcriptions that they have on their site (not that I expect they have any errors), but it seems like they would actually be appreciative of another set of eyes, and we can also build short descriptions for them to add to their website. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I've sent them an email; a copy of it is at User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/National anthems/email

There has been no response to a few attempts to reach them... I'm inclined to take their word for it when it comes to licensing, and make a note of it on the talk page in the textinfo template. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

And, having said that, I just got a response: "I apologize about the delay; we will have to look at each translation ans find out. But it would be something we would love to do, since David and myself are Wikimedians." We might be able to get some decent coverage of national anthems on this site after all :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

After further discussion with them, they do not have records of the source of their translations; I don't think their website can be used as evidence of license. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

commons:Template:PD-TM-exempt says that state symbols and sign like anthem is not an object of copyright, but how about translation licensing?--Jusjih (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The Princess (Lawrence)

The following discussion is closed:

deleted, clear copyvio —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

This was first published in Britain in May 1925, first as a serial, then on the 14th in book form. Per this Catalog of Copyright Entries record (note that The Princess was included with St. Mawr) and this renewal record, it was published in the US on 5 June 1925, with the US copyright renewed in 1953. (Moreover, since Lawrence died in 1930, his works were in copyright in Britain on the URAA date because of the extension from 50 to 70 pma.) Therefore the work will be in copyright in the US until 2021. BethNaught (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Clearly copyrighted in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Index:HistoryOfDharmasastraancientAndMediaevalReligiousAndCivilLawV.2.1.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

deleted as copyvio —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Also: Index:HistoryOfDharmasastraancientAndMediaevalReligiousAndCivilLawV.1.djvu

In checking the author for this I found that the author was still alive in 1972. (see w:Pandurang Vaman Kane).

I fail to see how these are PD either in the origin country, or in the US , 1972+50 being 2022 or so. Once the status is determined here, I will consider putting the scans up for deletion at Commons based on the outcome there. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems they're in copyright in the US now, and out of copyright in the US 95 years from publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Index:The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (UKSI 2016-0362).pdf and related pages

The following discussion is closed:

speedied as author request —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This document has been raised here not because the status of the document is doubtful, but due to the inclusion of a small number of third-party logos present in Schedule 12 of the scans (not yet transcribed) which would from subsequent examination of the relevant working drawings appear to be outside the scope of OGL terms. The document is thusly NOT purely OGL, and would appear to be incompatible with the licensing model Wikimedia sites use.

The issue of the relevant logos has also been raised on Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:The_Traffic_Signs_Regulations_and_General_Directions_2016_(UKSI_2016-0362).pdf

Because this is not a high profile work which is available on other sites (such as legislation.gov.uk), I would vote for deletion, until someone can provide scans in which the 'third-party' logos have been appropriately removed or redacted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

In any case , the effort here is incomplete, and the scans have no OCR layer. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks to be about 100 pages, some proofread, most not. No pages are transcluded. No qualms with deleting if the uploader is the requestor. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No objections to deletion as the majority contributor on this12:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

So anyone want to speedily close and clean this up as I am not seeing objections? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

2003 Utah State of the State Address

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

By the Utah Governor, and unless the State of Utah says otherwise, life+70.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Work for hire, so probably 95 years from publication, but... still  Delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom and statement — billinghurst sDrewth 13:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Delete {{{1}}}„ —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

27 December 2009 Commentary by John Yettaw

The following discussion is closed:

all GFDL-only texts added since 2009 have been deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a permission for this text to publish it under GFDL-1.3 license in OTRS that was rejected by an OTRS agent as incompatible with current WMF licensing policy. When the text was uploaded and the permission sent, CC-BY-SA was already the required license for any text contribution. So I think, this text should be deleted. Ankry (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Does Wikisource not allow GFDL-only works? It is still "free", and while I can understand the restriction about importing portions of GFDL works in editing mode, Wikisource is more about simply storing the entire source document without change. I believe Commons still allows GFDL-only images (though highly discourages them). If an external work happens to be GFDL though, I'm not sure why we would not be allowed to host it. Obviously, we can't take the text and use it in a Wikipedia article, but we should be able to reference it. It is different than an original contribution. Now... I'm not sure about scope here. It looks like the source is a comment on a message board originally. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Terms of use and earlier Terms of Use (2009) point out that no text contribution that is GFDL-only should be made to any Wikimedia project on or after June 15th, 2009. I am seriously interested in any policy interpretation that allows Wikisource GFDL-licensed uploads after that date (if anybody can point it out).

Also it is curious that this text has "OTRS pending" status for over five years... The OTRS ticket concerning this text is ticket:2010010610000422.

Ankry (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Those are the terms of use for active users of the site. It makes perfect sense for any amount of text on most any Wikimedia site, as it gets edited etc by multiple editors and the GFDL derivative work provisions make it an impossible license to work with. Same with comments like this one. But, stand-alone works are very different. Commons still allows individual images to be GFDL (as those do not create derivative work problems with text). For something like Wikisource, for works which are naturally GFDL with external sources, I don't see how those are bound by the terms of use. We are not into creating derivative works here; we just want to host the unaltered original text. It's still free. Granted, you can't copy/paste from those works into Wikipedia articles or Wikiversity texts, but ... they can certainly be referenced and there is probably a good amount of material out there which is very relevant. Say, Free as in Freedom. I do have scope concerns on this work, and if the OTRS is not valid then of course even the GFDL license is not true (I don't have OTRS access so I have no idea). But I don't see the point in banning individual GFDL works from Wikisource; we are hosting external works, not doing any collaborative editing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS ticket might be valid if GFDL was still accepted after 15.06.2009. But as I noted above, the permission was rejected basing on the WMF licensing rules. Maybe an OTRS agent with better knowledge about enwikisource licensing could look into the ticket? @Billinghurst:?

@Clindberg: I 100% agree that accepting GFDL would not be here such a problem as it would be for Wikipedia (maybe except potential problem with translating GFDL-licensed texts by wikisourcians). But such exception for Wikisource is not reflected in the official WMF policy. IMO, the current policy is clear here: we can upload GFDL-licensed scans, but we are not allowed to upload any GFDL-licensed text after 15.06.2009. I see no differentiation between stand-alone uploaded works and on-wiki created works in the policy. Policy just says about texts. Or am I missing something?

Ankry (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS permissions is one for @Jeepday, @JeepdaySock: — billinghurst sDrewth 11:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we can email back and see if the work can be relicensed. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess those are the terms of use -- the text may be validly licensed that way, and the author is not subject to the terms of use, but technically a user here cannot import that under those terms. It is nonsensical to me though that we would allow scans like that but not be able to transcribe them -- the copyright on the scan is the exact same as the copyright of the text. Can such scanned PDFs not have a text layer in them? Projects are allowed to have an EDP (an exemption to the regular licensing rules which makes more sense for their project). Those are normally used to allow non-free works, which Wikisource could never do, but maybe this situation is one area which may make more sense. To me, the terms of use was written for the collaborative text situation (which is true just about everywhere else on Wikimedia projects), but Wikisource is a bit unique in that aspect. I do guess that earlier uploaded GFDL works were allowed to be cross-licensed with CC-BY-SA (did we ever go around and change the licenses?) which could make a difference in that the text could be copied over as part of other projects. But I'm not sure it makes any sense to restrict Wikisource to only PD, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The sentence of wmf:Terms of Use (2009) that is relevant is "Furthermore, please note that you cannot import information which is available only under the GFDL." So 27 December 2009 Commentary by John Yettaw is a clear Terms of Use violation by Justmeherenow (talk • contribs) ;-) I say that tongue in cheek, as clearly there is no intent to harm, and the usual Wikimedia content licensing situation doesnt apply to Wikisource as the original content being reproduced is not user-generated, and the original text is not amended on Wikisource, and there isnt much else to copyright here. However we do have a problem also with all content in Category:GFDL, especially anything imported after November 1, 2008 and extremely especially after the relicensing clause expired on August 1, 2009. (see https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Interoperability_between_Creative_Commons_licenses_and_GFDL ). This was never properly resolved on Wikimedia Commons either, as many photographers refused to accept automatic dual licensing migration of their GFDL-only high resolution photos. See c:Category:GFDL. Because Commons is large and those photographers very vocal, they have pretty pictures, and they had very good arguments too (like preferring to trust FSF than WMF), this resulted in a text vs images distinction in the ToU, licensing upgrade tricks, etc. The WMF simply didnt want to tackle more than they could chew, so they allowed GFDL photos, but not text, even thought the GFDL is almost ridiculous when used for stand-alone photos, but it is certainly designed for primarily textual works with only media supporting the text.
In short, the terminology distinction between images and text in the Terms of Use is silly, especially on Wikisource, and needs to be revisited. Editing images is the same as editing text, it is only the ease and volume of edits that differs. We should treat our faithful reproductions (facsimile) as 'Non-text media' in the ToU - they are not creative works intended to be gradually improved over time by the community.
If anyone feels particularly strongly about the problem with GFDL texts wrt the ToU, we could call GFDL textual works 'non-free' (irony alert) and create an Exemption Doctrine Policy (see especially meta:Non-free_content#Wikisource) to bypass the Wikimedia licensing policy. I'd be happy to lead that effort, rather than accepting the sheer stupidity of having GFDL scans permitted on Commons that we are legally not allowed to transcribe. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

(@John Vandenberg:) We even have GFDL explicitly listed as a compatible license for works that can be hosted here. I don't understand the legal considerations well enough to know the best way to proceed. If we can't convince the WMF to update the terms of use to allow for WS, then an exemption doctrine policy looks like the only feasible solution listed above. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

"The WMF simply didnt want to tackle more than they could chew, so they allowed GFDL photos," no, actually there was an attempt to abolish GFDL 1.2 only, and the commons consensus was to keep them (not a WMF problem) see also c:Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 23:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of all GFDL-only works

What is the status on this? Do we need to delete all GFDL-only works uploaded since 2008-11-01 under our current policy? I'd support an EDP, but I don't see a lot of discussion on proposals of that kind so I don't think we're likely to get any kind of consensus on such a change in the near future.

If there are no further comments on this discussion I think I will move this forward as follows: first, a proposal for EDP on the Scriptorium; and if there is no consensus or no discussion I will just delete all works tagged GFDL-only that were uploaded since 2008. Here is a list of all the works tagged GFDL:

Extended content

2
Translation:2007 Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation Establishment Decree
27 December 2009 Commentary by John Yettaw
Talk:27 December 2009 Commentary by John Yettaw
A
Translation:À Eugène Lefébure - Monday 27 May 1867
A Short History of Russian "Fantastica"/Epilogue
A Short History of Russian "Fantastica"/Part 1
A Short History of Russian "Fantastica"/Part 2
A Short History of Russian "Fantastica"/Part 3
A Short History of Russian "Fantastica"/Part 4
A Short History of Russian "Fantastica"/Part 5
A Short History of Russian "Fantastica"/Supplement 1 to part 4
A Short History of Russian "Fantastica"/Supplement 2 to part 4
A Short History of Russian "Fantastica"/Supplement to Part 5
A Wodehouse Miscellany
Ad notam. Diverse years' notes
Translation:Address of the Fils de la liberté of Montreal to the young people of the colonies of North America
Affirmation of the Global Nonkilling Spirit
The Amnesty
An Anarchist FAQ
An Appeal to the Red Army
User:Anonymous101/The generous poor man
Translation:Another letter from P.R. Slaveikov - February 1874
Architekton Alexi Rilets
Translation:Audi filia et
Translation:Augusto Bonetti to the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith
Translation:Auld Lang Syne
Awakening (Pushkin)
B
Translation:Beijing City Public Security Bureau Order to Search and Arrest Escaping Members of "Beijing Higher Education Student Autonomy Union"
Translation:The Best Place for a Village
Biography of Guan Yu
Translation:Bishop Augusto Bonetti on the talks with Theodosius, the Metropolitan of Skopje
Translation:Bollettino della Vittoria
Book of Mormon (Plain English Version)
Translation:Boze Pravde
Bridge of Arta
The Bullfinch (Derzhavin)
But Could You?
C
Translation:Call to Arms (Lu Xun)
The careful and muted sound
Translation:Catullus 39
The Christmas trees are shining
Clouds will separate us
Comprehensive Picture of Spring
Translation:The conditions of transfer of Macedonian eparchies to Union with the Roman Catholic Church
Translation:The congregation for the propagation of the faith to Augusto Bonetti
Translation:The congregation for the propagation of the Faith to Augusto Bonetti - Second letter
Constitution of May 3, 1791
Translation:Cor nostrum
Country Report - Yugoslavia
Translation:Cum ex injuncto
Translation:Cum non solum
Translation:Customs of Lorris
D
Dagome Iudex
Translation:The Dark Realm
The Dark Side of Scientology
Translation:Das Deutschlandlied
Translation:De sinu patris
Declaration of Horace Sébastiani in French Chamber of Deputies about situation in Poland (1831)
Declaration of Lawrence H. Brennan
Translation:Dei Patris Immensa
Translation:Departing from Baidi in the Morning
Di – stance: versts, miles
User:Dmitrismirnov/Sandbox
The dull air is moist and resounding
E
Translation:Ea est in fovendis
Translation:El Coloquio de los Doce
Elegy 1830 (Pushkin)
Elemoont
Translation:Epistle to the Laodiceans
F
Fables and Parables
Fading Voices
"Farewell, Farewell, Unwashed Russia"
For an End to the Policy of Reprisals
For Freedom and Truth
Free as in Freedom (2002)
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Appendix A
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Appendix B
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 1
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 10
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 11
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 12
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 13
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 2
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 3
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 4
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 5
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 6
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 7
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 8
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Chapter 9
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Epilogue
Free as in Freedom (2002)/Preface
Free as in Freedom 2.0
Translation:The Free French to their Canadien Brothers
Free Software and Free Media
Portal:Free Software Foundation
Free Software Matters: The Public's Business
Translation:Frog Poem (Sitnitsky)
Translation:Frog Poem (Smirnov)
From beneath a mysterious and ice-cold half-mask
Translation:From the Field they are Going, Father
From the semi-dark hall, suddenly
Functional Package Management with Guix
G
Translation:Give It Up!
Translation:GNOOV internal affairs division 1040/1945
GNU Emacs Manual
Translation:The Golden Age (Martí)
Translation:Le Grand Meaulnes
Translation:Great Peace of Montreal
Guanabara Confession
H
Hagia Sophia
Translation:The Helmsman
Translation:Hino Nacional do Brasil (free translation)
Translation:Hino Nacional do Brasil (literal translation)
Translation:History of Guan Yin Hall
History of national Internet domain
Translation:History of the Insurrection in Canada in refutation of the report of Lord Durham
The Hon. Louis-Joseph Papineau's Address to the Electors of the Counties of St. Maurice and of Huntingdon (First Manifesto)
The Horse (Pushkin)
Translation:How Kraljevic Marko Learned to be a Hero
How Krill feeds
How the Scientology Organization uses and exploits the United States' legal system for its own ends
Translation:Hujusmodi salutationis nostrae
I
I Loved You Once
Translation:I Take My Leave of You
I'm given a body – what to do with it?
Insomnia. Homer. The rows of stretched sails
Translation:The Internationale (Kots)
Translation:The Internationale (Pottier, French)
Translation:The Internationale (National Revolutionary Army)
Translation:The Internationale (Qu)
Into the circling choral dance of shadows that trampled the soft meadow
Invocation by Laughter
Isim – e – Zat conference Speech
Translation:İstiklâl Marşı (1)
Translation:İstiklâl Marşı (2)
J
Translation:J'accuse...!
Jason Beghe speech at That is Scientology! Reports from the USA
K
Translation:Kimi ga Yo
L
Larry Brennan speech at That is Scientology! Reports from the USA
User:LarryGilbert/Bolonga Declaration
A Legend of Old Egypt
Translation:Letter from Gotse Delchev to Nikola Maleshevski (1899)
Letter from Louis-Joseph Papineau to George Bancroft - December 18, 1837
Translation:A letter from P.R. Slaveykov to the Bulgarian Exarch
Translation:List of Frequently Used Characters in Modern Chinese
The Living Telegraph
Longer Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya Sūtra
M
Translation:The Macedonian question
Translation:Call to Arms (Lu Xun)/A Madman's Diary
Translation:Mainz Anonymous
Translation:The Man Who Planted Trees
Manifesto Against Conscription and the Military System
Translation:A Manifesto from the Provisional Government of Macedonia - 1881
Translation:Manifesto of the headquarters of the Macedonian army - 1880
Translation:Manshu
Marc Headley speech at That is Scientology! Reports from the USA
User:Mathieugp/Drafts/Appeal to the Justice of the State (Epistle to General Haldimand)
A meagre beam in a cold measure
Menara-e-Noor
Translation:Mikraot Gedolot
Mold of the Earth
More tender than tender
Translation:The Morning Hymn
The Most General Life Ideals
Mozart and Salieri
Translation:Mozi
Translation:My Country is My Love
N
Translation:The Nail Broth
Translation:National Anthem of the Republic of China
Neolinguistic Manifesto
Night. City calmed down
Translation:Nihil novi
O
On Discoveries and Inventions
Translation:On Fortune
Translation:On individual means for respiratory organs protection against dust
Translation:On Individual protective means for workers' respiratory organs (review of literature)
On Macedonian Matters
On some controversies regarding origin and nationality of Nezami Ganjavi
Translation:One Can't Please the World
One Question
Translation:Ordinance 93-027 of 30 March 1993 on copyright, related rights and expressions of folklore
Translation:Orohydrography of Macedonia
Translation:Overview of Industrial Testing Outcome of Respiratory Organs Personal Protection Equipment
P
Translation:The Peach Blossom Spring
The Pine Tree
Piping autumn wind
Translation:Plant a tree
Translation:Ploughing of Marko Kraljevic
Translation:Preface to the Poems Composed at the Orchid Pavilion
Translation:Proper use of gas masks as prevention of occupational diseases
Prophecies
R
Translation:Reducing the harmful effects of polluted air at workplaces using respiratory PPE
User:Rekrutacja/Neolinguistic Manifesto
The Religion of God
Report about the first school district to start teaching in the Macedonian language
Translation:Romance of the Three Kingdoms
The Rose said: “Oh, my most radiant beauty
Translation:Rose VII
Translation:Rose XLVIII
S
Sacred song heals the sick spirit
The Sail
Seattle: Booms and Busts
Shades (Prus, tr. Kasparek)
A Short History of Russian "Fantastica"
Translation:Short Song Style
Shorter Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra
The Singer (Pushkin)
Sisters heaviness and tenderness – your signs are the same
Translation:The Slum
Translation:A Song about Serbian Time
Translation:Song of Everlasting Regret
Soon they have to die
Translation:Sorrow, Zare, let's Sorrow
Translation:A Sparrow and a Cat
Translation:Speech of the Hon. Louis-Joseph Papineau before the Institut canadien on the occasion of the 23rd anniversary of this society, December 17, 1867
Spider, say again
Translation:St. Edmund, King and Martyr
Translation:St. John the Baptist's Day Banquet
Translation:The Still that Died
Stone
Translation:The Story of the Stone
T
The Tale of Mac Dathó's Pig
The Tale of the Dead Princess
Translation:Tales of the New Era
Translation:Tao Te Ching
Translation:Tell me, Tell
Translation:A tender noisy troublemaker ...
Teng Wang Ge Xu
The Antoninus Agadot in Medrash and Talmud
Translation:The Cricket
The first Constitution of Macedonia - Kresna 1878
Translation:The House of Cards
The Mirabeau Bridge
Translation:The Pasha and the Dervish
Translation:Theodosius, the metropolitan of Skopje, to Archimandhite Dionysius
Translation:Theodosius, the metropolitan of Skopje, to Pope Leo XIII
Translation:There, Over There
Translation:Though the Tortoise Lives Long
Time's river in its rushing current
Translation:To My Dear People!
Translation:To One Who Does Nothing, Yet Defames the Work of Others
To read only children's books
Translation:To the Virgin Mary
To*** Kern
Tohfa-tul Majalis
Translation:Touring Shanxi Village
Transcript of The System Of Ownership Of Ideas
Translation:Travels in Southern France's départements
Tristia
Triṃśikā Vijñaptimātratā
Tsar Dukljan
U
Un coup de dés jamais n'abolira le hasard
Up out of an evil clinging pool
V
Translation:Velika Togenburg
Translation:Viam Agnoscere Veritatis
W
Translation:Wald honors its Freedom Hero Devaranne
What do you mean to the world? – Nothing!
What Is Soviet Power?
What is the benefit of our arrival and departure?
Where have we come from? Where are we going?
Translation:Whoe'er in Heav'n above Does Wish to See on Earth
Why the United States must investigate the crimes, abuses and frauds of the Scientology enterprise
User:Wikijeff/JAGS2
Wikipedia- The Missing Manual
Translation:Will of Chiang Kai-shek
With Blood and Iron

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleting such works makes no sense to me. As does making GFDL an "incompatible" license. We should basically allow licenses similar to Wikimedia Commons (which has no formal EDP yet allows them anyways, despite being subject to the same terms of use). I think conflating the terms of use (which make sense for collaborative texts, and talk page stuff, etc.) into which external works we can import does not make much sense. I guess locally-created translations are the main issue -- we may need to disallow GFDL-only for those, as other editors should be allowed to tweak them, etc. Weren't existing GFDL translations changed to a combo GFDL/CC-BY-SA at some point? If not, can we still make that change? If not, I would grandfather those, and bar GFDL-only on new translations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Clindberg: I am no expert on the situation, but my understanding is as follows.

• Works uploaded before the cutoff (2008-11-01) under GFDL-only are ok; they did not get changed to GFDL/CC-BY-SA but they are exempt from the Terms of Use so they can stay. This includes both imported works and original content by editors.
• Original works created by editors after the cutoff (including local translations) cannot be GFDL-only, so that doesn't matter.
• The terms of use explicitly say that importing text "available only under GFDL is not permissible." This is not conflating the terms of use, this is a direct quote. The terms have separate articles for text and non-text so Commons is not really relevant.

The list above is all the texts that are GFDL, but many of them may be pre-cutoff or dual-licensed and therefore hostable. I didn't have time to comb through the list.

The whole discussion (to my understanding) boils down to this: the terms of use forbid GFDL-only imported text since a certain date, and we have GFDL-only imported text since that certain date, so how can we address the situation? Two options only have been suggested: an EDP, or deletion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Anything in the Translation: namespace is user created, so I don't understand why you listed them. Are you proposing to delete those or not? They make up a considerable proportion of your list. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, the list is a list of all GFDL works. It contains, but is not limited to, the post-2008 GFDL-only works that User:John Vandenberg proposed for deletion. If you want to go through the list and remove ones that do not meet the post-2008 GFDL-only criteria, go for it; I don't have time to do so. The list doesn't matter. I don't care about the list. What matters is that there is a significant corpus of post-2008 GFDL-only works on this site, and that in the absence of discussion all such works will need to be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, if we don't even know which items are being considered, then I say postpone any discussion or decision until we have a specific list to be considered. These could simply be incorrectly tagged; they could be pre-2008; they could be original user-generated translations; they could be anything. As it stands, we don't know the status of these items so it is premature to even discuss them, much less delete them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Such a list is in progress at Category:GFDL-only. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. But, Commons is subject to the same terms of use, but allows GFDL-only media, if that is the license. That includes PDFs, etc. It really does not make sense to bar those. The terms of use are more for collaborative texts, where multiple editors need to work on them, and create original content. For the primary texts of Wikisource, that is not the case -- editors simply duplicate already-existing text so there is no new copyright added, so there should be no licensing concerns. To bar GFDL-only texts because of the terms of use does not make sense to me -- those are not written by contributors to this site. They are still "free" and we had always allowed them. Wikipedia does not bar the use of GFDL-only images being used in the articles -- just on the collaborative text because that is really the only way collaborative text can work, legally. The Translation: namespace probably does come under those collaborative concerns, but for original works which we are simply copying, I don't think the terms of use were targeted at those, and I'm not sure I see any problem with them. If we should create an EDP to make that explicit, fine, although I don't think that hosting free works necessarily requires one. I simply think that applying the terms of use to imported texts does not make any sense -- that should just be a "free work" requirement, like it has always been. The change in the primary licensing should not have affected the core content that we can host. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Clindberg: I agree it doesn't make sense. But the terms that forbid GFDL-only explicitly apply to imported text (section 7c), and not for collaborative original content nor for non-text media. The most sensible approach would be to fix the terms of use to be more sensible, but EDP would be more feasible. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Yes, but importing text on Wikipedia and just about any other project comes with the assumption that it will be modified from there. Wikisource is still different. I don't think Commons would have any issues uploading GFDL PDFs, if they were a source document. But an EDP would be fine, even if not exactly what they were meant for (they are normally an exemption to allow use of non-free works in certain circumstances, which we are not trying to do). I guess we are trying to get around a terms of use that some people think apply to this case, when I don't think it was at all intended, and I don't think WMF would have an issue with anyways. They would be the only ones to enforce the terms, so if they do actually consider this a problem and they want to ask for deletion, then OK, but short of that I don't see the need to delete them. They are not a copyright issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through all mainspace works in Category:GFDL and compiled the following list of GFDL-only works added since 2008-11-01:

• 27 December 2009 Commentary by John Yettaw
• The Amnesty
• An Appeal to the Red Army
• Book of Mormon (Plain English Version)
• The Bullfinch (Derzhavin)
• The Dark Side of Scientology
• Declaration of Lawrence H. Brennan
• Fables and Parables
• Free as in Freedom 2.0
• Free Software Matters: The Public's Business
• Functional Package Management with Guix
• GNU Emacs Manual
• Larry Brennan speech at That is Scientology! Reports from the USA
• Marc Headley speech at That is Scientology! Reports from the USA
• Neolinguistic Manifesto
• On Discoveries and Inventions
• Piping autumn wind
• Soon they have to die
• Spider, say again
• Tohfa-tul Majalis
• Wikipedia- The Missing Manual

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Story of Ichalkaranji.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

File is copyright in the US, retrievable in 2025 — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Published in India. Near as I can tell this is by Horace George Franks, born 1895 in Sussex, as listed in Who was who among English and European authors, 1931-1949 by Gale Research Co. in 1978, and which doesn't appear to list a death date or mention citizenship. Doesn't seem to have followed US formalities or to have been published in the US at any point, if he were still alive in 1978 it wouldn't meet Indian or UKish copyright expiration needed for URAA exception. Prosody (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if he was alive in 1978; it seems likely he just died and his death wasn't noted in the literature. HathiTrust just has him as 1895- , and he'd be 122 if he were still alive. He's listed on books from 1960 and 1970 there, and while I'm not sure when he wrote his part of the 1970 bureaucratic tome, he seems to be the only author of the 1960 Pocket Holland. For URAA purposes, I'd assume India would be the relevant nation, but that doesn't help us. As it's a 1929 work, we can undelete in 2024 2025.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Found an article in the Dutch paper Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant which appears to place him alive and at the age of 80 in 1974. Describes his career including his time in India, confirming the identification. Prosody (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

A similar search shows this, which apparently states he died in December 1987 at age 93. Either the age is one off or he was born in 1894 (which would also correspond to turning 80 in 1974 the above article). Still under copyright just about everywhere then. Can undelete here in 2025, for a 1929 publication. Commons would be considerably longer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Index:Story of Ichalkaranji.pdf was apparently already started by others. Those pages would also need to be deleted? .ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted and protected from unlicensed re-creation.--Jusjih (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Barack Obama was not an employee of the Federal Government when this speech was given, and I see no reason it's not life+70.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

 Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Bible/Peter and Bible/Acts of Philip

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: the works in question have been moved to The Apocryphal New Testament/Peter and The Apocryphal New Testament/Acts of Philip. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

These appear to be from The Apocryphal New Testament by M. R. James, published from what I can tell from Google Books snippets in London in 1924. Can't tell if it was ever published in the United States. The author himself is an Englishman who died in 1936. Prosody (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently copyright was life+50 in the UK until 1995, but it was retroactively extended for any work which is under copyright in any other EEA state at the time on 1st July 1995, which is a pretty intimidating research question. Prosody (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Also the extension took effect on 1 January 1996, same as URAA... Statuatory instrument in question. Prosody (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Given the timezones, that would make the UK law take effect before the URAA, which I understand was part of the intent. Iceland was a EEA state without that rule of the shorter term, that I believe was life+70, meaning that the law restored copyright on just about everything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to think it's not copyrighted in the US. I believe it was published in the US, but much later and not by the copyright holder. I think we're going to have to wait a couple years here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that we only have snippets, and not the whole work, and not likely to have whole work, it probably should be deleted for other reasons outside of copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

 Delete for reasons given above —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The Dog and the Cat

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a wiki source listed, but that Wiki doesn't mention where the translation comes from. A Google Books search turns up this reference, which is a modern 1971 translation by Dorian Rottenberg and Brian Bean. (HathiTrust link.) I can't be sure this is the source, without seeing the whole book, but it looks right.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I went through snippet view and there were only 2-3 very slight differences (probably just transcription error). That is the source, unless there was an earlier translation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

 Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Jesus Christ (Raffel)

This is tagged {{PD-IndonesianPub}}; even if this is a valid license in some situation, I don't see why it's for these files. "I" has no clear source, and I don't know anything about the translator. "Jesus Christ" has a source, "The Complete Poetry and Prose of Chairil Anwar", published in the US in 1970, so PD-IndonesianPub is clearly irrelevant for the translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Chipmunkes: contributor

•  Delete as I don't see that the works are in the public domain in the US in Indonesian; and the template as well. The licence template has no apparent basis relevance to our English works. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

   Comment this discussion also will entail the page Author:Burton Raffel as works would be copyright. I would think that it should also entail Author:Chairil Anwar as they won't have works in the public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete for both works, and Raffel and Anwar author pages. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Japan Speaks Out

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

As brought up by @Beleg Tâl on my talk page:

looks to be copyrighted in the USA under the URAA

and

The license tag on File:Japan Speaks Out by Shingoro Takaishi.djvu is also incorrect as it appears that Shingoro Takaishi died on Feb 25th, 1967, putting it PD in places where it's life+50, not life+70.

-Einstein95 (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 Delete; both you and the file uploader have confirmed that you have no reason to consider it to be PD. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The six tailbone of the Cenozoic era 신생대의 여섯 번째 꼬리뼈

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The work of a living author has been uploaded with {{PD-release}} though contains no evidence of the release or the source, not even whether the work has been published. We also have the issue that this is a Korean language work and has a translation where the same lack of evidence applies. Further the additions have been made by an IP address, making contact difficult. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Also note that the author page and the redirect for the author page would seem to be affected if the work is deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Paris Spleen/Let's beat up the Poor!

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Appears to be an original translation by this blogger, and hence copyvio. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Oeconomicus

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Page mentions "From: Ancient History Sourcebook" and matches (minus a sentence removed in WS copy) the translation on https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/xenophon-genderroles.asp. That page has a copyright notice of

Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. No representation is made about texts which are linked off-site, although in most cases these are also public domain. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.

which I believe goes against Wikisource's copyright policy. It also appears that the text was modernised by Jerome Arkenberg, who is still alive. I do not know if this extends copyright due to modification of a PD translation.

Ideally we should transcribe the source text (Readings in Ancient History: Illustrative Extracts from the Sources, p. 265–271) instead. -Einstein95 (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The translation we have is a tiny excerpt (which also makes it out of scope) from Xenophon in Seven Volumes, volume L168 of the Loeb Classical Library published by Harvard in 1979 and subsequently digitized at Perseus. Almost certainly copyright despite any licenses claimed by other sites that host it.

The translation you linked in Readings in Ancient History is hostable, but the one we have we should  Delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

On Terrorism and the State

The following discussion is closed:

deleted—still in copyright --BethNaught (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Originally published in Italian in 1979, published in French translation in 1980, itself published in English translation in 1982, and this version of the work is a 2004 edit of that. The only permission for which there is any evidence or assertion is on the talk page, from somebody related to the 2004 version, and that a Wikisource-specific permission, not a free licence. Even if the 1979, 1980 and 1982 versions were all PD because of US rules on foreign works, I believe the 2004 version we have must be in copyright (c:COM:HIRTLE). BethNaught (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The URAA restored practically everything published after 1925 published in life+70 nations that isn't American in some sense. So, yeah, definitely copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete nothing indicates that it is out of copyright, and even the translation is problematic. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Long Life Prayer for His Holiness the Dalai Lama

The following discussion is closed:

deleted --BethNaught (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

According to the linked PDF booklet, this was translated by Freda Bedi (Gelongma Khechog Palmo) who died in 1977. Also gives apparent translation location as Rumtek, Sikkim, making it PD in 2037. -Einstein95 (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

In the US, it will be PD 95 years from publication if it was published while Bedi was alive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I doubt it will be possible to identify publication date, but it was clearly recent enough to warrant that we  Delete the text. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete look at the FPMT copyright statement on their site, it doesn't look like it was released under a commercial license by any stretch. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Tears of the Fatherland

The following discussion is closed:

deleted --BethNaught (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Matches translation by Ivo Mosley on http://ivomosley.com/earth-poems/; published 1996 according to WorldCat http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/948576221. -Einstein95 (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Delete in that case. Note that per the link given, the translation may have been published earlier, e.g. in The Green Book of Poetry (1993), but this has no impact on the copyright of the translation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

based on the evidence presented, and without any other likely candidate for transalation ...  Delete — billinghurst sDrewth 04:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Works by Author:Suman Pokhrel

The following discussion is closed:

deleted --BethNaught (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Before taking decisions
• Standing in a market

After two years on WS, there is no assertion or evidence provided that these works, written by a living author in Nepali and translated by another person (Abhi Subedi), are freely licensed or in the public domain.

If these works are deleted, the author page should also be considered for deletion as Pokhrel has no other works hosted here. BethNaught (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete both the original works and the translation prevent us holding the works. Agree author page would go as part of clean-up. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Given this statement by the uploader, that the license for at least one of the original poems is ND, and the lack of further information, I'm going to go ahead and close this as delete. BethNaught (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Unknown soldiers (song)

The following discussion is closed:

deleted: lack of source and license information. BethNaught (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Earliest version of the English I can find is here, posted 2011 with no free license or release. I assume the poster is the translator. There is no indication otherwise. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Delete there is so much unknown about the work with regard to WS:WWI — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 01:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards

The following discussion is closed:

deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 01:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Translation from Middle English is from http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/137.htm , but appears to be originally from http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/varia/lollards/lollconc.htm . The copyright notice at http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/ is explicitly non-commercial only. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

On the evidence presented it would see to be a modern translation of a 1907 reproduced work, which makes it  Delete. One wonders whether contact with the translators would be of value to see if they would release it under a modern license, though even that may still be NC. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 04:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 01:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

On Succession to the Crown

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted for non-compatible license--Jusjih (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there any reason to consider this out of copyright? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It really depends on Australian law regarding speeches by elected officials in the course of their debate in the national government. I'm not familiar with Australian law, but this is a speech in the Australian lower house (national) by an elected official to that representative body. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Typically work of the parliament belongs to the parliament[3], though Jill Hennessy may be able to release a copy of the work to the public domain. I have pinged the contributor to ask them to contact the author whether they are able to release a copy under a suitable creative commons license. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Index:The maritime provinces of British North America and the American Revolution.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

deleted 22:45, 8 May 2018 EncycloPetey

Querying this as the original is undated, and commentstext would suggest it's post 1923. The author died in 1950, but I've not found any-more details. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Googling it gives a few results dating the text to 1941. Could be {{PD-US-no-notice}}, unless the scan we have is deficient and missing a copyright notice that was there originally. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Assuming the scan is deficient (I find it odd there is no title page) searching Stanford turns up nothing, so possibly PD due to no renewal? BethNaught (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a HathiTrust scan at mdp.39015027930448, which does have a title page. Looks like it was published in Canada, so it was in copyright there in 1996 (life+70), so it's 95 years from publication (i.e. 2036). Unless our version is a US edition, in which case, no renewal should mean PD. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 Delete Can you see the HathiTrust scan? It just blocks me as copyrighted. [4] offers me "associate professor of history at the University of Buffalo for 25 years", but that doesn't mean she wasn't a Canadian national at the time, and could have even lived in Canada. Even if we have a US version, we have to establish that it was legally published less than 30 days after the first publication; if the Canadian one was first by a couple months, then the URAA would have restored it. I think we have to delete. But Canada is life+50, not +70, so it is fair game for Canadian text publishers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's a review of the book, it's definitely a Canadian publication, and the contents are "reprinted from a series of articles in the Maritime Advocate" (also a Canadian publication). This looks like a candidate to be moved to Bibliowiki. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

But for Canada, won't it remain under copyright until 2021 (copyright for 70 years after the death of the author?) --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Canada is life + 50 so it's been PD up here since 2001 (assuming the year of death is correct). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete and I would call it 2036 resurrection as whichever way it is 95 years post publication, not pma related. Not worth us worrying about bibliowiki, there is nothing for us to move. Inform uploader of the situation. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Poems by Andreas Gryphius

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as translation copyvios--Jusjih (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• All is Vanity
• Human Misery

These are translations of two 17th-century poems. The translations are attributed to "Scott Horton", and match this 2007 Harpers' post by w:Scott Horton (attorney) (possibly born 1955, alive as of August 2016). I think this is reasonably clear, but I'm wary of unilaterally speedying copyvios in case there's something I've missed. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete seems evident, and without source material pointing elsewhere. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --BethNaught (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The Devil with the Three Golden Hairs

The following discussion is closed:

Copyvio revisions deleted by Prosfilaes --BethNaught (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

This is an unsourced translation of one of the Grimm's Household Tales that is available various places on the internet. It is based on the public domain Margaret Hunt translation, but there are many changes, such as "luck-child" is changed to "child of good fortune", and "laid his head in his grandmother's lap, and before long he was fast asleep" gets translated more completely as "laid his head in his grandmother's lap, and told her she should louse him a little. It was not long before he was fast asleep". The earliest publication I can find of this version is a 1997 Wordsworth edition, which gives no translator. The transcription here is a bit odd, as all the quotation marks are removed, the semicolons removed, King/Queen decapitalized, etc. Should I replace the contents of this page with a versions/translations page linking to the verifiably public domain translations that we have? Mudbringer (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

HathiTrust won't show me the scans, but it claims that text can be found in several editions, with the first in 1944, which it lists as "Revised, corrected and completed by James Stern" (w:James Stern?). A search of Gutenberg's copy of the renewals (11800) says that this was renewed, R529103. I can't speak with certainty, but the preponderance of evidence leads me to say that this is still under copyright in the US and will be until 2040. So yes, deletion seems called for.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, it's good to know who made the revisions. Didn't realize how useful HathiTrust is for this kind of investigation. Mudbringer (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I changed the contents of the page, but should the page actually be deleted first? Mudbringer (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted the older revisions. Normally it's better to leave it as until there's a little more time for discussion, but it's easy enough to undo if anyone objects.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Delete per the info provided by Prosfilaes. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: BethNaught (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

BitTorrent Open Source License

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Despite being a "free" license, the actual text of the license itself is not necessarily released under the BOSL, and, as far as I can tell based on the BitTorrent website, is explicitly copyrighted by BitTorrent Inc. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Works by Samora Machel

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

A new editor has added the following works by Author:Samora Machel

• Educate Man to Win the War, Create a New Society and Develop our Country (1970)
• Our Health Care Service's Role in the Revolution (1971)
• Leadership is Collective, Responsibility is Collective (1972)

These works do not appear to have been issued by any government. Are these in PD? I tagged them as "no license", which was removed by the editor. He has not responded to the message I left him about licensing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Portuguese Mozambique was life + 50, and copyright was automatic, and Machel died in 1986; so these works are still copyrighted unless they were explicitly released by Machel, which does not seem to be the case. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete based on above information, copyright works. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
•  Delete. Agree with the above assessment, this appears to be undoubtedly still under copyright. Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

File:H.M. The Little Town.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.—Tarmstro99 19:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I have just uploaded the Heinrich Mann's book and after upload I realized that the publishing date provided by Internet Archive (1909) is not reliable. Also, there is no clear publishing date inside the book. The 1909 date provided here seems to be the copyright date for German edition. Also, Worldcat does not report any English edition with clear publishing date prior to 1930 (and Winifred Ray, the translator does not seem to be active so early). If you share my doubts, please delete the file. KäthesBücher (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

HathiTrust has a date for this of 1931. No birth or death dates for Winifred Ray.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Quick look says 1879-1968 for years of life for Winifred Mary Ray— based on 1911 census for WR as secretary to publisher; 1939 (says b. 21 Mar 1879) and occupation as translator (retd.) and 1881 census shows daughter of clergyman (no surprise.) — billinghurst sDrewth 23:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I noticed the same book here. The seller sugests that it is the first UK edition published in 1930. And so, it falls under URAA, IMO. Am I wrong?

@Prosfilaes: HathiTrust does not provide publication date for this book. The 1931 date is for a US edition (it seems to be published with copyrigt notice and I cannot find copyright renewal for this edition; but I do not thinh that this does matter). Also, if it was published one year later, I do not think these can be simulateous editions. And so, sadly, I see no way it can be PD before 2026. KäthesBücher (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

published 1930 review in The Times Literary Supplement, Thursday, September 18, 1930; pg. 732; Issue 1494.— The Little Town. Williams, Orlo (Orlando Cyprian Williams). Looks like "delete" as US copyright will be 95 years post publication if not simultaneously published in US; or 2059 for Commons based on year of death. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

No objection to deletion; it does seem to be under copyright until 2027 in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. Tarmstro99 19:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 19:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The Thirsty Crow

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.—Tarmstro99 21:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Appears to be a contemporary translation of Aesop’s The Crow and the Pitcher. The translator is unidentified and the text does not match any of the public-domain versions of the fable that are already posted here. Tarmstro99 21:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom — billinghurst sDrewth 06:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Delete. The exact text is all over the internet but there is no indication of who actually the author/translator is. Many people appear to be taking credit for the same translation, and it's apparently a widely used text for students. Delete as copyright can't be ascertained concretely. Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. Tarmstro99 21:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 21:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair Antigua, We Salute Thee

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.—Tarmstro99 14:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

and Page:Antigua and Barbuda National Anthem.png.

No license template, no evidence that the text is PD. The underlying image has been deleted from Commons as copyright violation after this discussion. Ankry (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 Delete per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antigua and Barbuda National Anthem.png —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 Delete, concurring with rationale at the Commons discussion. Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Deleted. Tarmstro99 14:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 14:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The Face in the Pool

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted.--EncycloPetey (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Appears to be a contemporary retelling of a story from Greek mythology. The text appears to be from Mary Pope Osborne, Favorite Greek Myths (1989) (OCLC:859032019^{all editions}, ISBN 0590413384), available via Google Books , except with the Greek names of the gods substituted for the Roman names used in Osborne’s book. The scanned volume at Google Books includes an express copyright notice reading: “Text copyright © 1989 by Mary Pope Osborne.” Although public-domain versions of the original story may exist, the version hosted here remains under copyright. Tarmstro99 17:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 Delete, I see no reason to doubt your analysis. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Deleted 19th October 2018 kathleen wright5 (talk)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I Loved You Once

The following discussion is closed:

deleted as copyrighted translation —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Translation appears to be misattributed, actually by Reginald Mainwaring Hewitt (1887-1948), but the earliest publication I found is here: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.171142/page/n21 -- since UK copyright would have extended past 1996, can anyone identify a pre-1923 publication? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

According to this, first published 1927. Oh well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Samaritan liturgy/Al-Asatir

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be a text published in London in 1927, written by a British citizen. Prosody (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

 Delete as the text is copyright in the UK and would have been restored by URAA —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment I have moved the works to portal ns. as a bare minimum as there is not the evidence of the published work by this name, and how the subpages were published is also unstated. I am tending to  Delete on the work itself based on Prosody's nomination, and we should investigate the others listed at Portal:Samaritan liturgy, it would appear Moses Gaster did publishing of Samaritan work in the 1900s which is out of copyright in the US.
•  Comment After the move to a Portal: many of the links now point nowhere, and all the internal navigation links are broken, since they still point to the old locations. If we keep this, someone with a bot will need to retool all the navigation links on each page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done there was just the one set of links to update. regex editor tool works for this sort of thing, and its save feature is always useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I further nominate to  Delete Portal:Samaritan liturgy in total. The only work in the portal, besides the one nominated above, is yet another unsourced partial copy of the Authorized King James Version with a parallel text in a language that is out of scope on enWS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Works translated by Robert Elsie

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as translation copyvios--Jusjih (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• To the Adriatic
• The Oracle of Dodona
• The Flute
• Forgotten Memories
• The Song of Gjergj Elez Alia

Albanian poems translated by Robert Elsie (1950–2017). Based on the source information provided, the first and last listed could be speedied. The others could hypothetically be PD based on the information available to me, but I think it's unlikely and I have no evidence for that. BethNaught (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete Translator page has a link to http://www.albanianliterature.net/ which states non-commercial use only — billinghurst sDrewth 00:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted The Song of Gjergj Elez Alia after locating the printed volume in which the translation was published (ISBN 0865164126, OCLC:51152943^{all editions}). The volume includes an express copyright notice reading, “Copyright 2004 Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved.” Tarmstro99 14:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 11:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Karl Marx: A Brief Biographical Sketch With an Exposition of Marxism

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I took this here, but there's also some serious WS:PD issues here. This has no source, and only the preface. The table of contents includes articles that according to the lengthy header description weren't published until 1925, and then in Russian. There's absolutely no source information for the translation. I can see cases where this is PD in the US, but then WS:PD comes in; there's only a paragraph long Preface here (Karl Marx: A Brief Biographical Sketch With an Exposition of Marxism/Preface).--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

 Delete no source, no evidence of copyright, abandoned with no ready ability to be continued. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 11:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

History Will Absolve Me

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

According to the Historical Dictionary of Marxism, the translation of "History Will Absolve Me" by Pedro Álvarez Tabío & Andrew Paul Booth was publised in 1975 by the Editorial de Ciencias Sociales in Cuba. As Cuba is life+50, this wouldn't be out of copyright until 2059 at the earliest as Pedro Álvarez Tabío died in 2009. -Einstein95 (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete per nomination as it can't possibly be PD. Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 11:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Constitution of Excel Edu-Clubs and Election Code of Edu-Clubs

The following discussion is closed:

deleted; copyright and scope — billinghurst sDrewth 02:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

These appear to be cut-and-pasted from the (now-defunct?) web site of an educational organization. This archived copy of Election Code of Edu-Clubs includes an express copyright notice (“EXCEL Copyright 2012”). I have been unable to find an archived copy of Constitution of Excel Edu-Clubs, but if it originated on the same organization’s web site, then the same copyright notice likely applies. These documents appear to be related to content that was deleted from Wikipedia in 2014 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edu-Clubs), and the conclusion of that discussion may also be relevant for us under {{WS:CSD}} A2, but to my mind the existence of an express copyright notice is the more urgent consideration and we need not reach the question of notability. The fact that the copyright notice appears only on an archived copy of the site, however, made me think that the better course of action was to give our community a chance to weigh in on whether to delete. Tarmstro99 15:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete (if copyright doesn't get it, then scope should, not certain that it meets WS:WWI criteria) — billinghurst sDrewth 06:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 11:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The communal award

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

A fragment that appears to be taken from Encyclopedia on Jennah, Volume 5 (ISBN 8126137797), by one Prakash K. Singh, published 2009, per Google Books , a contemporary work that most likely remains under copyright. Tarmstro99 19:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom — billinghurst sDrewth 06:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 11:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Our Beloved Country

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

National anthem of Madagascar.

1. Madagascar copyright law does not appear to make any exception for the anthem.
2. Madagascar copyright is 70 years PMA, which for Rahajason will be 2041
3. Also the oldest copy of the translation I could find is this explicitly copyrighted collection, though I could not say with certainty that the translation is original to that collection. Nonetheless, there is no reason I can find to consider it in the public domain.

It seems clear to me that the translation is obvious copyvio, but also that the original is copyvio as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Aitareya Upanishad (Sri Aurobindo translation)

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Earliest version I can find is Eight Upanishadas with a first edition 1953. This is consistent with the publisher's note in The Complete Works of Sru Aurobindo which states that they were written before 1914 but not prepared for publication until after the author's death in 1950. This, I understand, means it would be copyrighted in India until ~2020 (70yrs pma) and therefore also covered under URAA. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

India has a 60 years' rule, not 70. Even then, URAA applies, if the author dies in 1941 or later and in case of posthumous works, if published in 1941 or later. Hrishikes (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Regiment march

The following discussion is closed:

deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Prior discussion at WS:PD identified this work as an English-language translation of a Turkish original. That discussion is reproduced here for ease of reference:

A Google search for the text turned up only this page itself. In the absence of prior publication information there is nothing from which we can conclude that the text may be hosted here. Perhaps it is an English-language translation of a foreign-language work? Tarmstro99 21:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

 Delete, couldn't find any source either —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this is a translation of s:tr:Alay Marşı, the song of the w:Special Forces Commando (Turkey). BethNaught (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@BethNaught: good find. Do you by any chance know anything about the copyright status or authorship of the Turkish song? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I looked for that information, but couldn't find anything, unfortunately. BethNaught (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It is possible that the original Turkish text is copyrighted; it does not seem to fit within the exception found in Article 31 of their statute for “laws, rules, regulations, notifications, circular letters and juridical decisions which are officially promulgated or announced[.]” Regardless, the English translation posted here is likely copyrighted (it’s a little too poetic to be the product of machine translation, as a look at the whimsically off-kilter Google auto-translation of s:tr:Alay Marşı will confirm). No translator is identified and no license is provided to indicate that this translation may be hosted here. Tarmstro99 17:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

 Delete since no one seems to know the copyright status of either the original or the translation —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Maha Nidana Sutta

The following discussion is closed:

deleted due to noncommercial restriction on translation —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

There appear to be copies of this text all over the internet. Can we identify a published source, a translator, and verify that it is actually in PD? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Source. Licensed under CC BY-NC and therefore not hostable (sadly). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Other

The Coming of Wireless

The following discussion is closed:

Exported to wikilivres:The Coming of Wireless--Jusjih (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

See Wikisource:Scriptorium#BBC_Radio_Times. Not published before 1923, and as a British work published in the 1930s, surely restored by the URAA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

surely forum shopping. please go to commons for the URAA enforcement, rather than a transclusion site. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 13:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This document isn't scan-backed, discussion is still necessary here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Not scan-backed?? What are File:Radio Times - Christmas 1935 - William Temple a.png and File:Radio Times - Christmas 1935 - William Temple b.png, then? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

 Comment scan-backed meant a scan at Commons, with the text in the Page: namespace here. If you have scans of these works, then we should be creating issues in the index namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

i can accommodate you there, if that is your objection. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 03:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

How is such formatting trivia relevant to a discussion on whether to delete content? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Since the author died more than 70 years ago, this article is in PD in the UK. Why would it be under copyright in the US? Do we have any evidence the BBC's Radio Times was registered for copyright in the US? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the URAA. The specific example the US Copyright Office gives is: "A French short story that was first published without copyright notice in 1935 will be treated as if it had both been published with a proper notice and properly renewed, meaning that its restored copyright will expire on December 31, 2030 (95 years after the U.S. copyright would have come into existence)." Registration is not required for copyright under US law, and to the extent it was, the URAA is designed to retroactively remove that requirement for foreign works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Just checking. Do we know whether these were published in the US within the prescribed period? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

no registration here for 1934 to 1935. [5], no renewal (after 1978) at [6]. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 04:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

registration and renewal would mean publication in US; no commentary means not published, or published with no care. I would tend to favour that it wasn't published in the US until we have evidence to the contrary. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

 Delete per Prosfilaes. BethNaught (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Move to Biblio.wiki?--Jusjih (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

comment you realize it not up for deletion at commons? File:Radio Times - Christmas 1935 - William Temple a.png. you realize that, anyone could thus recreate it at will? or by extension, the entire series of the periodical? will you now be "holier than commons"? are we now going to allow URAA editors now to relitigate their "out of consensus" views here? yeah - i guess we need to take all the "unpure" cases to the more un-american websites. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 03:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be preferable Slowking4 that you address the subject matter, not attack a person, or point to a lack of action at another site. So please put your case about why this reproduced work is not under copyright, and keep your insults for your own mind. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If there is a deletion discussion at Commons, can we please have a link to such discussion. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

that is not a personal attack; that is a statement of fact: no DR; so periodical can be uploaded at any time and an index created, both for this page, and the entire periodical. is this a new URAA policy more stringent than commons?; the fact is that there is no DR for the periodical page, while blanked here. i wonder what is the process for cross wikimedia copyright "enforcement"? what kind of a selective enforcement is this? Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 05:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's use neutral language, instead of going on about pure and holy. We have different rules than Commons; Commons deletes many works that are PD in the US, but at the same times permits works that are in copyright in the US, depending on the source nation. Commons claims that it accepts only "that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work", but that's clearly not true, and I don't see any reason to make a nomination for deletion on Commons that's clearly going to fail. I've made the argument, there's consensus on Commons against me, and refighting that fight would be quixotic and frustrating to all involved.

(I'd note that it's slightly more complex; some Israeli photos were deleted because the copyright owner argued for it on Commons, despite the fact they were PD in Israel. They were first published in the 21st century, so this was not a URAA case. I think 1984 is going to be another exception, because the Orwell estate is not going to care about UK law when demanding its removal from a US site.)

An index can be created at any time, but that's true whether or not the periodical is available on Commons. We and Commons have no way of forcibly stopping people from uploading Harry Potter either in scan form or text form except for deleting the work and possibly blocking the user.

If Wikisource is willing to assume that this was not renewed by the URAA, then let's assume that. If that is true, we keep all works that are PD in the US, and this work in whole is PD in the US, so we shouldn't work from a mutilated copy with pieces that PD in the US cut out because they aren't PD in the UK. Whether or not a work that was in copyright in its source nation on its URAA date (1996 for most nations) is currently in the public domain in its source nation is irrelevant to whether or not it's PD in the US now.

The rule of the shorter term sucks. It is the major reason works published in 1923 aren't leaving copyright in the US until next year, because that US extension gave US works twenty more years of copyright in foreign nations. If Europe didn't have the rule of the shorter term, then works first published in 1943 might leave copyright next year in the US. It's also a mess; as long as I stay in the US, I should never have to argue Italian or Chinese case law to establish my legal rights, and US courts aren't competent to rule based on Italian or Chinese law. Commons rules, by including all that law, are vast and complex and unknowable; say what you will about US copyright law, it's vastly simpler than US copyright law + UK copyright law + every other nation's copyright law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Using neutral language (as requested) perhaps Prosfilaes support base is not quite as strong as Prosfilaes thinks it is? Perhaps his past intransigence (oops: is that really neutral?) has come home to bite just a little? 114.74.62.196 01:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

There's two vd's above and no vk's. So when you can make a case, you make a case; when you have the majority on your side, pound on the majority; when you have no case and no majority, pound the table.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 Keep. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 Keep bad faith nomination. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 17:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Which is close to libel. I nominated a work I believed violated Wikisource policy for deletion. I don't recall any other interactions with Andy Mabbett, though I've probably encountered him in passing on Commons, and I make no habit of ignoring works that violate this particular policy on Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

talk is cheap: either bring your legal action in the Eastern District of Virginia Federal Court, or keep your legal threats to yourself. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 03:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I made no legal threats. I think my words were entirely clear.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

your game playing skills are clear, it is so sad that they are not matched by skill at getting content work done. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 12:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

By law (URAA), this is probably not PD in the U.S. It could easily be nominated on Commons as well. Commons does delete for URAA reasons, but it can be haphazard, especially for files used on non-English projects (which are not always as strongly tied to U.S. law like en-wiki and en-ws). Works like this are particularly aggravating, because it did enter the PD in the UK in 1995, but then got re-copyrighted in both nations one year later (the EU extensions for the UK, which in turn triggered the URAA restoration in the U.S.). As such, it would be copyrighted in the U.S. for 95 years from publication. The only hope it has for the U.S. is if it was simultaneously published in the U.S. in 1935, which seems unlikely. I don't like long copyright terms, and will try to find ways to keep works, but also do believe we should follow the law -- and the URAA is the law. The WMF will follow the URAA when push comes to shove, such as the Anne Frank diaries. Like Prosfilaes, I will typically vote delete on Commons if the URAA is an issue (and they do get deleted sometimes), but I don't nominate myself for that reason either. May add the Not-PD-US-URAA tag from time to time though. The only other possible thing would be if 17 USC 108(h) applies, which may be arguable, but may require some clearance from the WMF for usage (the Internet Archive may start using that for some works). It's more arguable when you are making scans for out-of-print works available; not as sure when simply copying scans from another archive, but maybe. It would only make it legal though, not "free". Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

another good reason to reconsider "fair use" of the orphan. it is out of print, i.e. cannot order print copy, except at print out of digital copy (showing the obsolescence of the concept) Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 16:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete this is one of those few cases that we face where the work is out of copyright in the home country, but no in the US; usually we have them the other way around. The work has no evidence of being published in the US, it was published in non-US jurisdiction after 1923, so it seems 95 years post publication is the copyright period for this article. Move to Bibliowiki — billinghurst sDrewth 13:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment I don't understand why there is controversy about this. The author died in 1944, so the work was copyrighted in the UK until 2014 (70 years pma). Because the work was copyrighted in the UK in 1996, it was restored by the URAA and is copyrighted in the USA until 2039 (95 years pma). Because it is copyrighted in the USA, we must delete it. I don't see why it's more complicated than that. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment it is more complicated, in that the risk of lawsuit is so low, that commons has reached a consensus not to delete URAA files (or to avert gaze and stop mass deleting). (i believe wikipedia hebrew was incensed; WMF filed briefs against the decision by the supreme court) the prospect of gaming communities, and relitigating every consensus that is not delete is ugly. when an admin chooses to bite an editor to import drama from elsewhere, it tends to undermine the credibility of wikisource. there are plenty of transcription projects manned by wikipedia editors who have left. more glory them. a prudent admin might reflect on the failed wiki, wikinews. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 16:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  Okay, I think I understand. No one is denying that the work is copyrighted in the USA, and no one is denying that the work is against Wikisource policy. Instead, the argument is to keep the work regardless (and presumably others like it). I get it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

i am denying it is against policy. the consensus on how to interpret policy is very clear on commons. it would be unfortunate if the reputation for welcoming on wikisource, should be tarnished by admin behavior, more often seen on commons. cultural institutions do take note of admin behavior. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 23:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

keep in mind policy does not necessarily follow the law slavishly - i.e. PD-art.Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 23:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

What does Commons policy and consensus have to do with Wikisource? And why do you keep bringing up fair use, given that the consensus on how to interpret policy is very clear against fair use on Commons and here? (And while there's no consensus against changing policy here, there's also no consensus for it.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

why do you keep bringing your deletionist bad attitude where ever you go? you are clearly forum shopping to find new communities to foist URAA on. did you seek a consensus for that? this behavior is a net negative for these projects: you destroy more than you create; and rest assured there will be a cost for this behavior.Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 23:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The URAA has generally *always* been followed here to the letter. There are some users who I consider on the deletionist side -- looking for any doubt of PD status -- but Prosfilaes is not even close to one. He simply follows the "free" policy, and orphan works and URAA restored works are absolutely not free. Yes I understand that you would prefer that WMF be like other large Internet sites which pretty much allow stuff until someone complains -- but to me, that is not the premise the sites were founded on, and there are people who care deeply about that aspect, and the WMF doesn't want to be seen doing that either. I dislike people stretching possible copyright situations to ones that have never been litigated and that sort of thing, but the URAA is plain, straight, unambiguous law. Commons can be frustrating because there are often two very different copyright laws to satisfy -- you finally get by one and there is the other -- but en-wikisource does not care about the law in the country of origin (outside of how it affects the URAA); it is based on U.S. law alone, and the URAA is part of that law. I am always looking for new, reasonable legal arguments to keep works, but for me I draw the line there -- no orphan works, no ignoring inconvenient laws, etc. If we can get the law changed, great, but that's the only way out for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

1922 non-US renewed works

The following discussion is closed:

question appears to be answered —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

In working through some copyright renewals, I've noticed stuff like

THE ENCHANTED APRIL, by the author of "Elizabeth and her German garden" [i. e. Mary Annette Beauchamp Russell, countess] © 5Jan23, (pub. abroad 31Oct22, AI-4698), A696165. R56839, 6Jan50, Mrs. Corwin M. Butterworth (C), Mrs. Eustace Graves (C) & H. B. Arnim (C)

This seems to imply that that this is treated as a 1923 work, instead of as a 1922 work, despite the fact it was published in 1922. Is this right?--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

for us, the US edition may be in copyright, so we probably ensure we have the British edition if we think that it is problematic. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure the 28-year term would start from the foreign publication (if it was in English). From the Compendium II:

1311 Works first published abroad in English. Under the Act of 1909, as amended, ad interim copyright was a short-term copyright available to English-language books and periodicals which were manufactured and first published abroad. It was secured by registration within six months of first publication abroad and lasted for a maximum of five years from the date of publication. Copyright could be extended to the full 28-year term if a U.S. edition was manufactured and published within five years after first publication abroad, and if a claim to copyright in the U.S. edition was also registered.

1311.01 Both editions registered. If ad interim and full-term registrations were both made within the proper time limits, renewal registration may be made to cover both editions.

[...]

1311.03 Separate applications. Where separate applications are submitted, each application must be filed within the 28th calendar year of the term of copyright in the particular edition it covers. The Copyright Office will annotate each application to refer to the other edition.

1311.03(a) Late application. If the renewal application is received more than 28 years from the end of the year of first publication abroad, registration will be refused because the application was received too late. The applicant may submit a new application covering the U.S. edition alone, if that edition contained new matter, and if the application was submitted during the renewal period applicable to the new matter.

[...]

1311.05 Foreign edition never registered. If the foreign edition of a work was never registered ad interim, but the later U.S. edition was registered, the Copyright Office will accept a renewal application covering the U.S. edition. In the case of an application received during the 28th year measured from the end of the year of foreign publication, a cautionary letter will be sent stating that the registration is of doubtful validity. In the case of an application received more than 28 years from the end of the year of foreign publication, the cautionary letter will explain that renewal registration covers only the new matter, if any, in the U.S. edition. A new matter statement will not be required on the renewal application, unless a new matter statement appeared on the original application.

So, it would seem the 28-year clock and copyright renewal was counted from the date of foreign publication, although if there was new matter in the U.S. edition, then of course that new matter would use the later date. That entry looks like both the ad interim and U.S. versions were registered and validly renewed; but any matter in the foreign edition should be PD, and only new matter in the U.S. edition would still be under copyright (for another year and a half). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Battle-Retrospect (1923)

The following discussion is closed:

question answered —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know when a 1923 work by an author who died in 1993 will be in the public domain? Specifically, Battle-Retrospect by Author:Amos Niven Wilder (Yale University Press, copyright 12 April 1923; renewed? 4 May 1950). Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It's my understanding that such works are 95 years pma, so 2088. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

When will 1923 works enter into the public domain in the US? Will this work not be included at that time? Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is as bad as 95 years PMA. Works published before 1978 are at worst 95 years from publication, and works published since 2002 (or since 1978 by authors who died since 1978) are 70 years PMA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Next year. It does seem to be renewed. I suspected that the poems were previously published, but if and where they were, they don't seem to be turning up in HathiTrust.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. Another year then. I could only find "Ode" previously published (from Battle-Retrospect). Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I see you've already searched and found sources for several poems. It'd generally be better if you uploaded the PDF of stuff like The Yale Literary Magazine, Volume 85, even if you're only going to do a partial transcription.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but I was young and foolish back in 2011 ;) No issues with overwriting when the time comes... Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned, U.S. works are 95 years from publication when properly renewed, so that will expire in January 2019. In many EU countries, it may not expire until 2064, as 70pma is often the term there (and many EU countries have old bilateral treaties which may prevent them from using the rule of the shorter term for U.S. works). Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hm. Question @Clindberg:: If a contributor lives in the US but moves overseas, are they subject to the copyright laws of the country to which they move for editing purposes? Does it matter if they live on a US military installation? Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Infringement would be prosecuted in the country where the infringement takes place, subject to that country's laws, and the copyright owner's desire to press the issue. As for if a US military installation would matter... oof, may depend on the w:status of forces agreement, which could get very weird if a U.S. author were to sue (those agreements are usually more for legal issues involving locals). The odds are usually lower that a foreign entity would sue overseas in the first place, and I'm guessing extremely low for a case where items could simply be deleted and re-uploaded by other users which would not be infringement, most especially for something out of copyright in the source country. I think Germany is the only country which confirmed the 70pma aspect for U.S. works via court case, but most of those old bilateral treaties were worded similarly. It's always possible another country's court system could rule differently. And lastly, the location of websites vs. location of users has blurred a lot of the lines where infringement actually takes place, and courts can vary wildly on those matters and how older law relates to them. Would seem highly, highly unlikely, but as always the uploader has to make the judgement -- if there is a particularly litigious author, or a work is still making lots of money for someone, those are the ones to tread more carefully on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response. Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Librivox, which uses US law, deleted readings of Agatha Christie's early works, which are still in copyright in Canada where the founder lives, because her estate got threatening. I'd imagine any Wikimedia contributor would have to really piss off a copyright holder before they would directly get sued; unless you're leaking documents or posting Harlan Ellison™ works, I'd find it quite unlikely. Pick the level of risk you're comfortable with.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

except when admins pick your level of risk for you. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 12:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Prufrock

Am I right in thinking that Index:Prufrock and Other Observations (1917).djvu needs to be hosted locally instead of on Commons? This is a UK publication of 1917, and T. S. Eliot died in 1965. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I have pushed that djvu version here. You may wish to start the deletion discussion at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 06:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Question on upload policy

The following discussion is closed:

Question answered.—Tarmstro99 14:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it permissible to upload a djvu source file to Wikisource if it contains material which is in the public domain in the US, but not in the country of its original publication? I'm asking because such files cannot be uploaded to Commons, and I have one which I would like to upload here if it's permissible to do so.
David Wilson (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as long as all the content is PD in the US. We allow local uploads to English Wikisource for such works if they are not PD in their country of origin, but are PD in the US. Commons requires PD for both, but en-WS makes the allowance for PD-US works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Do not move to Commons reminds not to transfer the file.--Jusjih (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 14:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

DNC Lawsuit against Russia, Wikileaks et al..?

The following discussion is closed:

Question answered. Briefs and other legal pleadings by private attorneys (as distinct from government employees) are presumptively copyrighted by their authors and may not be hosted here unless released under a compatible license.—Tarmstro99 14:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Firstly is this in scope: ? http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/the-dncs-lawsuit-against-the-russian-government-trump-campaign-and-wikileaks/2914/

Secondly who is this copyright to? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Why would you think that it is not under copyright? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a formal submission to a US court. I wanted a second view on whether these are copyright (assumed) or not as public record. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Copyrighted documents can be submitted to court and added to public record; they do not lose their copyright status when this happens. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

One of the more famous examples of a copyrighted work being included in a court decision (not just public record, the court decision itself) is a court decision about Superman that includes the entirety of Action Comics #1. That's generally been argued as not being repostable except in rare cases preserving maximum fair use aspect.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming, that in the absence of anything saying otherwise that it is copyright, and thus can't be on Wikisource. Thanks ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

This is correct. All works created in the USA since 1978 are automatically copyrighted (with exceptions such as government works) and need to be explicitly released in order for us to host them. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Relevant prior discussion available at Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2017#Copyright status of court submissions. To that discussion I would only add that pleadings, briefs, or other court filings drafted by U.S. federal employees (for example, DOJ, SG, or agency counsel) would fall under {{PD-USGov}}; copyright problems arise only with respect to filings drafted by private counsel (or attorneys for governments other than the U.S.). Tarmstro99 22:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 14:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The Book of Martyrs (Foxe)

The following discussion is closed:

moved to Wikilivres —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Although the original The Book of Martyrs, also known as the Actes and Monuments (1563) was written by John Foxe, who died in 1587, this book is a later edition that clearly contains a lot of material added by someone who could not have been Foxe, since it relates to events from the 17th up to the 19th century in some chapters. These texts have most likely been added by the editor William Byron Forbush, who published this book in 1926 and died in 1927. The licence PD-old is therefore wrong, this book containing original work from Forbush was published AFTER 1923. Moreover, it was most likely published in the USA because Forbush lived there, so PD-1996 would not apply. Finally, I checked and its copyright was renewed in 1954, excluding PD-US-no-renewal. By the way, this website confirms Forbush added a few new chapters himself, and warns the copyright may not have expired yet. So if I understand correctly, this work should not be on Wikisource yet. If the last website is correct about 95 years, this couldn't be on Wikisource until 2022. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

 Delete for the reasons outlined above. It can be moved to BiblioWiki. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Letter to President Bush

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

A contemporary work (2001) by multiple authors, several of whom are still living. Although sent to a public official, it was authored by private citizens, who presumably collectively hold the copyright in their creation under the joint authorship rule of U.S. copyright law. Although issued as an “open letter” and undoubtedly intended for wide release, there is nothing from which we can infer that the authors expressly disclaimed their copyright. We have previously deleted similar “open letters” from private citizens to public officials on copyright grounds; for example, Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2010-05#Henry C. Karlson III's letter to Barack Obama, Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2012-04#John Nash Letters to NSA, Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2012-11#The Dalai Lama's letter of congratulations to Barack Obama, Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2012-12#Letter to John Gunther Dean. The same outcome should follow here. Tarmstro99 18:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

 Delete, I can find no copyright release for this work —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Tarmstro99 18:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)