Open main menu

Wikisource:Copyright discussions

(Redirected from Wikisource:COPYVIO)
Copyright discussions
This page hosts discussions on works that may violate Wikisource's copyright policy. You may join any current discussion or start a new one.

Note that works which are a clear copyright violation may now be speedy deleted under criteria for speedy deletion G6. To protect the legal interests of the Wikimedia Foundation, these will be deleted unless there are strong reasons to keep them within at least two weeks. If there is reasonable doubt, they will be deleted.

When you add a work to this page, please add {{copyvio}} after the header which blanks the work. If you believe a work should be deleted for any reason except copyright violation, see Proposed deletions.

If you are at least somewhat familiar with U. S. copyright regulations, Stanford Copyright Renewal Database as well as University of Pennsylvania's information about the Catalog of Copyright Entries may be helpful in determining the copyright status of the work. A search through Archive.org or Google Books may also be useful to determine if the complete texts are available due to expired copyright. Help:Public domain can help users determine whether a given work is in the public domain.

Quick reference to copyright term

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days. For the archive overview, see /Archives.Template:Autoarchive resolved section/parameter timecompare set to 'resolved'

DiscussionsEdit

Philosophical Writings: Translators modern unpublished translation, or possible gifted translationEdit

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

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

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

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

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

Apostille ConventionEdit

A Convention published (corporate author) by the w:Hague Conference on Private International Law (an IGO), whose general statement on copyright is:

Reproduction of the information is authorised, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is duly acknowledged.

That is, it is an -NC limitation incompatible with our policy.

Alternately, at the time of signing the following countries were members of the Conference (and must be considered co-authors in this scenario): Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. All these except Portugal and the UK have PD-*Gov copyright exemptions that could possibly be argued to cover an international convention signed by the respective country (which gives it "edict of government"-type authority), and that it is covered by PD-EdictGov in the US. This would still leave us with copyright in Portugal and the UK, but could be considered sufficient to be able to host it on Wikisource. --Xover (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This is an international treaty, isn't it? I'm pretty sure international treaties are covered by {{PD-EdictGov}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I haven't checked on the exact legal definition of a "Convention" vs. a "Treaty", but intuitively I would have said it qualifies as an "international treaty". It certainly functions as one to a layman's understanding. --Xover (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article starts out thus: "The Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, the Apostille Convention, or the Apostille Treaty, is an international treaty" —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
do you have any evidence they have enforced an NC? because institutions have a history of putting NC on PD works. and UN is complicated, and conflicted. we could also contact the WiR at UN. Slowking4Rama's revenge 01:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in!
Their enforcement or lack thereof should be immaterial; this issue falls under copyright, not trademarks (where enforcement matters). The -ND limitation is clearly stated in their published license terms and—on available information—not in question. I also do not think the UN is relevant to this particular case, as the HCPIL is an independent IGO and not a part of the UN (except that they seem to have observer status in the UN).
That means that as best I can tell, our only avenue for "country of origin"-PD would be if the community's consensus was that the Hague Conference on Private International Law is not actually the author, for copyright purposes, of the treaty. If the signatories rather then HCPIL are the authors we can apply "government work"-type copyright exceptions where they exist. My initial (superficial) check indicated that this was all the signatories except Portugal and the UK, but if we go that route we would need to check that international treaties like this are actually covered by the respective countries' "government work"-type exceptions.
However, I believe Beleg Tâl's point above was that as an international treaty (which nobody yet has questioned) it should be covered by the US "Edict of Government" exception (PD-EdictGov), making it public domain in the US, and thus within policy on Wikisource on those grounds alone. Unless we see a very good chance that this would actually meet the more stringent Commons standard (US+country of origin), relying on PD-EdictGov would seem to be the sensible path forward. Iff the community agrees that that is the proper application of our policy in this specific case… --Xover (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Flag of ASEAN.svgEdit

The flag is copyright by ASEAN. It's used under Fair Use doctrine on enWP, and has been deleted multiple times on Commons (it keeps getting reuploaded by someone carrying a torch). --Xover (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Past discussions on Commons suggest it might be {{PD-ineligible}} in the USA due to simple geometry, despite being copyrighted in source country. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, no, the discussions suggest someone attempted to make that argument, but it was dismissed. And I agree: even if the rest of it was, that central design thingy does not qualify for PD-ineligible. --Xover (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Index:Civil Rights Movement EL Text.pdfEdit

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


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

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


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

"Hi John,

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

See https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page

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

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

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

Act of State Independence of the Republic of AbkhaziaEdit

Translation of a 1999 declaration of independence, with no source, no translator given, and no license for the translation. Original is presumably PD-EdictGov. --Xover (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be the source, though it does not indicate whether the UNPO translated it themselves or whether it was issued by Abkhazia already translated. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  Delete Unless it is found out and supported by clear evidence that the translation was issued under a free licence, we have to assume that it was not. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Bethesda Statement on Open Access PublishingEdit

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

  •   Delete per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep pending further investigation. The fact that the work was posted in DASH does not mean that DASH holds the copyright to the work. Indeed, the work has appeared in multiple locations online which purport to apply different policies: for example, at this site which states that all content is CC-BY 3.0 unless otherwise stated. Different repositories have different copyright policies, but only the actual copyright holder’s views (usually meaning, those of the author or authors) govern. I agree that it most likely makes sense to view the statement as a work of joint authorship by the conference participants (rather than the work of an individual author), although the document does not actually so state. More information about authorship and the provenance of the work seems to be needed here. Tarmstro99 17:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    Suber also states that he is not an official spokesman for this document, so his claim of CC-BY is no more credible than the DASH claim to NC and ND restrictions. If any organization owned the copyright it would be HHMI, who convened the meeting and invited the participants. However, as the text itself states, the authors contributed as individuals rather than as representatives of their organization, so joint copyright seems to be the correct assumption. Because of this, in order for us to keep the text, it will be necessary to find an explicit release issued by all contributing authors. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Tarmstro99: If we agree that all the actual licenses provided in the different repos and sites in which this appears cannot be trusted, then we need to examine the known facts to determine its status for ourselves. Do any of the observable facts support a free license or a copyright exemption (public domain)? If not, the default state is that it is protected by copyright owned by its authors. --Xover (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Index:Gillies plastic surgery 1920.djvuEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
File transwikied prior to deletion at Commons.

Harold Delf Gillies (1882–1960) so not necessarily PD outside the US, File is not PD-old-70, and so should be localised. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, sounds right to me —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Note that this file is not just eligible to be transwiki'ed locally, it is actually currently proposed for deletion on Commons. I've commented there and urged that it not be actually deleted until we can copy it (no guarantees, but they're usually pretty good about accommodating such requests when they're aware of the need). However, I was sure there was a user script or tool labs tool for performing such reverse moves from Commons properly (preserving edit and upload history, mostly), but am currently utterly unable to find it. Does anybody know what utility that was? Alternately, how do you handle such cases? --Xover (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    There's not a whole lot of need to worry about such detail on a file uploaded from a third-party site. I've copied it here, so we don't lose it, but it could stand some more metadata.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    I'll grant I am excessively obsessive of such matters, particularly for this (simple) case. Comes from having had to investigate moderately large-scale bad-faith copyvio uploads after they had been transwikied from enwp to Commons. The old revision history would have made the job a lot easier. --Xover (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Best plays of 1941-42 and the year book of the drama in America.pdfEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Deleted.

Not necessarily PD-70 as claimed at Commons, Did someone check for a renewal? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion at Commons; it's renewal R491846, and that's irrelevant for all those plays it's reprinting that probably have their own renewals in the year they were published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thailand PD Exempt and speechesEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
works by Sukavich Rangsitpol are almost certainly covered by contemporaneous copyright of the author, or UNESCO's non-commercial copyright, it is not believed that works are exempted by provisions of Thai copyright law.
  1. If suitable and verified permissions are provided through the c:Com:OTRS system from the author of the work(s), then we would be able to host any permitted works. This would be in the terms of the permissions declaring the works to be made available under a suitable creative commons licence as described at Help:Copyright tags
  2. An author page is appropriate for solely the listing of the works where these works are available on the web.
    • Where a work is available elsewhere on the web in html form, then a wikilink to the work is suitable
    • Where a scanned/electronic version of the work is available in PDF, DJVU, WORD, then after the title listing then linking through use of {{external scan link}} is allowed.
billinghurst sDrewth 21:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Kept as exempt official work. --Xover (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Do speeches by government officials fall under the auspices of {{PD-TH-exempt}}? According to the banner, it applies to:

  1. News of the day and facts having the character of mere information which is not a work in literary, scientific or artistic domain
  2. Constitution and legislations
  3. Regulations, by-laws, notifications, orders, explanations and official correspondence of the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units
  4. Judicial decisions, orders, decisions and official reports
  5. Translation and collection of those in (1) to (4) made by the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units

I'm looking at Teachers' Learning in a Changing World (1996) by the Thai Minister for Education. There's no indication of where this speech was given, or of the copyright status of the translation. That aside, assuming that the translation is fine, I can't tell if it is covered appropriately by this license.

It's clearly not news, constitution, or legislation, so (1) and (2) are off the table. Nor is it judicial, so (4) is out. The question is then if this counts as a "notification" or "explanation" or "official correspondence" of the Minister, nor am I sure how to go about figuring it out officially.

-- Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mukkakukaku: I have no idea, but I'd wager that speeches don't count. It might depend on how the transcription of the speech was first published. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The work is a report of a paper delivered at a SEAMEO symposium. "The Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) is a regional intergovernmental organization established in 1965 among governments of Southeast Asian countries to promote regional cooperation in education, science and culture in the region". The Ministers of Education of the members sit on its council, and it appears to be hosted by Thailand. The working language is almost certainly English (the members have no other language in common that I can see), so the translation is by the Minister or his Ministry. In other words, you can probably take your pick of the three possible reasons for copyright exemption in 7.2(3).
    So, unless anybody wants to argue otherwise, I'm going to go ahead and close this as   Keep fairly soon. --Xover (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2019
The Copyrights belongs to His Excellency Mr.Sukavich Rangsitpol.If someone wants to argue otherwise please check the following numbers
Please Keep this page for Future References .
Please Undeleted The Minister Work .
1) Ministry of Education
662 282 5765 call center 1579
Education Policy depends on Minister of Education and would change when the Minister was replaced
2)The Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO)
662 391 0144,662 391 0256
3)UNESCO Bangkok
662 391 0577
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:9800:bc11:bd0d:dda7:8f2a:c48:ca52 (talk)
@Xover: I think the IP user has a point. The work in question, Teachers' Learning in a Changing World, was closed as "keep", but was then deleted under this discussion which doesn't mention it at all. Was this a mistaken deletion or am I missing something? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: The IP is wrong about nearly everything; but you are correct! It was swept up in the other bulk deletion because the analysis on the author page linked from that discussion listed it as a publication of SEAMEO; but we’d initially kept it because it was a speech to SEAMEO by the Minister of Education in his official capacity (if it had truly been under the personal copyright of Rangsitpol as the IP claims it would have been copyvio). I’m unable to perform the undelete right now, but can do it next weekend if nobody gets around to it before then. And my apologies for the gaffe! —Xover (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Xover:
English is not my language,I might lead you to the wrong direction.I do not know if my following explanation would help.
He is politician that mean all his work and speeched copyrights is under PD-TH-exempt {{PD-TH-exempt}} {{authority control}}2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:E83A:CD55:61FE:71C4 23:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I’m afraid you’re mistaken. Thai copyright law contains no general exemption for works by politicians. The only relevant exemptions are for works of the actual government, including works by sitting ministers when acting in their official capacities. Works by Rangsitpol before or after his term as Minister of Education are not exempt from copyright, and neither are works that were not produced as part of his official duties as Minister. And even for works that would be exempt, third party reporting and translations would have their own copyright. --Xover (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
A politician does hold copyright over his work. The copyright over a work created by a politician does belong to the politician. Being a politician does not mean your works are copyright-free. PD-TH-exempt only covers public information, such as legislation, judicial decisions, news of the day, etc, or translations thereof made by public agencies. And the work in question does not fall under any of the PD-TH-exempt criteria at all. --Miwako Sato (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Miwako Sato: You have authority’s to delete The Page in Thai .I was surprised that you didn’t say it is useless and should not be kept .
https://th.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%B4%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%A8%E0%B8%A9:MobileDiff/99660
His Excellency Mr.Sukavich Rangsitpol was CEO at American oil company .He probably does his own translation.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:451:D4F5:8595:AC73 18:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: you are right.All his work that in Wikisource is
{{PD-TH-exempt}}
{{authority control}}
Because it is about Education Reform.It was the work that he did during his term as Minister Of Education.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:DDA7:8F2A:C48:CA52 18:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/csee.2014.13.1.54
In this Link he was Omitted from Minister of Education List.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:8485:D00B:9E51:6E4D 18:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
Right after the 1997 Asian financial crisisIncome in the northeast, the poorest part of the country, rose by 46 percent from 1998to 2006.[1] Nationwide poverty fell from 21.3 to 11.3 percent.[2] Thailand's Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, fell from .525 in 2000 to .499 in 2004 (it had risen from 1996 to 2000) versus 1997 Asian financial crisis [3]

It was that effect from His Excellency Mr.Sukavich Rangsitpol Education Reform.

He did so much for the poor children in Thailand and someone hated it.That why they try to delete his work.If you are not from teacher family who has many benefits during his time as a Minister of Education.You will not know .2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:8485:D00B:9E51:6E4D 18:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

There will be a lot of people coming along in the future try to delete his work.Please remains calm,your opinion is right.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:8485:D00B:9E51:6E4D 18:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  1. NESDB, Economic Data, 1995–2006 Template:Webarchive
  2. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named WBBO-200511
  3. "Thailand Economic Monitor November 2005". World Bank. Retrieved 5 January 2019. 
  •   Comment I have deleted another work added by this user, the work of a person who was not a politician at the time the work was written, who was stated as being resident in Japan, and for which there was not the evidence that the works would have been exempted from Thai copyright law. It would seen to me that the IP editor has a different understanding of copyright than other users at this site. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    Further, there would seem to be a clear misunderstanding. My reading of the {{PD-TH-exempt}} is more akin to {{PD-GovEdict}} than {{PD-USGov}}, and it doesn't put the work into the public domain just for its creation during a period of a public role, it is a more limited and specific set of criteria. The works will need to be released by the author under an OTRS declaration (see c:Com:OTRS) if they are to be reproduced. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@billinghurst All the work I uploaded was his work as Education Minister,Including the speech he gave during that time.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 10:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The second appears to be a summation regarding what the Ministry's policies are, and being on a Ministry of Education website, it looks like that someone is the Ministry of Education itself. Not only does the original document mention Bumrung Chiablam, the text was uploaded here by Bumrung Chiablam. But by the design of the site I'm going to go ahead and guess that Bumrung Chiablam is an employee in the Ministry of Education's ICT department that created that custom microsite to which this document belongs (a feat often called out in 1997, before CMSs took over; I've been credited like that myself), or possibly someone serving as the secretary for a meeting or conference where the information was presented, and not an actual author of the content. Meaning it is a MoE document, and falls under PD-ThaiGov under the same provisions as the document at question in the thread above. The third is a "Paper submitted to the 45th session of the International Conference on Education, Geneva, 1996", by Rangsitpol, then sitting Minister of Education, and having just launched a new 10-year strategy for education connected with the w:1997 Constitution of Thailand (and surrounding events). IOW, I'd say this qualifies as PD-ThaiGov. --Xover (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Xover (talk) Your opinion was correct,why my upload was deleted.Should I wait for you to undeleted it.
The reason I upload to day because the person who nominated the article to be deleted using the reason that UNESCO doesn’t allow their materials for commercial.

I believe that UNESCO will not consider Wikisource us Commercials Site .

That way the articles should be deleted.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 14:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  Comment

  1. Our terms, as explained at Wikisource:What Wikisource includes, require all work to be available for commercial use.
  2. That the person was the education minister does not put those works into the public domain per template:PD-TH-exempt
  3. I believe that generally works by this person will need the specific permission of the writer, so would need an OTRS permission, and we leverage the information as expressed at c:Com:OTRS
  4. Please stop bombarding this page with irrelevant text, it is not helping to provide your point of view, it just clouds the discussion, and lowers people's tolerances.

billinghurst sDrewth 22:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

[2] 2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:6916:15FC:254A:2D65 23:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC) 2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:6916:15FC:254A:2D65 23:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I was going to post that ,and I thought it would look better with the blue links.

The work has been there more than a year before it was deleted.And the other experience editor believe it could be undeleted.

I apologize for my behavior.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:6916:15FC:254A:2D65 23:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Extended content

==Sukavich Rangsitpol Education Reform Policy== == Sukavich Rangsitpol ==

  • Article {{{number}}}:
c1. {{{clause1}}}


This article has previously been brought to this Noticeboard twice (Archive 279 and Archive 286) as well as in other venues. The talk page of the article has become a mess due to a group of connected contributors (likely a sock of Nafeby633) trying to argue and remove the material about the subject's ban of homosexuality and the procurement of computers, both of which are well-sourced. I am asking some experienced editor to take a look at the article and take action as may be deemed appropriate. Thanks. --G(x) (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I happened upon these edits the other day while on recent changes patrol. The above looks like a fair summary to me. In addition, the article is plagued by repeated, aggressive (re)additions of excessively promotional quotes, invalid or off-topic citations, and unfounded original research insinuating the article subject is to be credited for Thailand's recovery from the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Right after the 1997 Asian financial crisisIncome in the northeast, the poorest part of the country, rose by 46 percent from 1998to 2006.[1] Nationwide poverty fell from 21.3 to 11.3 percent. name="WBBO-200511"Thailand's Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, fell from .525 in 2000 to .499 in 2004 (it had risen from 1996 to 2000) versus 1997 Asian financial crisis [2] 2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Thailand education reform 1995

In 1995, the minister of education, Sukavich Rangsitpol, launched a series of education reforms in 1995 with the goal of achieving educational excellence by 2007.[3]

"The objective of education reform is to create learning individual, organization, and society. An educated person or the authentic learning outcome should possess the following abilities and characteristics which are based on Thai cultural heritage and appropriate level of education: good physical and mental health, critical thinking, intellectual inquisitiveness, professionalism, sense of responsibility, honesty, self-sacrifice, perseverance, team spirit, adherence to democracy, and love for king, country, and religion."[4]

2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

According to UNESCO, Thailand education reform has led to the following results:

  • The educational budget increased from 133 billion baht in 1996 to 163 billion baht in 1997 (22.5% increase)
  • Since 1996, first grade students have been taught English and computer literacy.
  • Professional advancement from teacher level 6 to teacher level 7 without having to submit academic work for consideration was approved by the Thai government.
  • Free 12 years education for all children provided by the government. This program was added to the 1997 Constitution of Thailand and gave access to all citizens.[5]


Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Sukavich Rangsitpol[3]

Author talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol[4]

Template:BLP noticeboard [5]2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC) 2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 15:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The Reason I want to record the Policy

1) If the Thai Authorities realize it was the education reform policy that really increased income for the Poor. 2) The policy will be here waiting to help Thai people again.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 15:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  1. NESDB, Economic Data, 1995–2006 Template:Webarchive
  2. "Thailand Economic Monitor November 2005". World Bank. Retrieved 5 January 2019. 
  3. Dachakupt, Pimpan (1999). "The current innovation in curriculum development in Thailand". International Journal of Curriculum Development and Practice 1: 93–101. Retrieved 18 September 2018. 
  4. Dachakupt, Pimpan (1999). "The current innovation in curriculum development in Thailand". International Journal of Curriculum Development and Practice 1: 93–101. Retrieved 18 September 2018. 
  5. Education Management Profile: Thailand. Bangkok: UNESCO PRINCIPAL REGIONAL OFFICE FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC. 1998. Retrieved 18 September 2018. 

==[[User: G(x)]] Contribution ==

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Sukavich Rangsitpol[6]

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Sukavich Rangsitpol[7]

Template:BLP noticeboard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sukavich_Rangsitpol [8]

@ Billinghurst

I apologize for my actions this week.I have been busy and the last Time I was satisfied with @Xover conclusion in July.But after a month everything is Deleted. Please kept the Author Page to yourself,so that the other paid cannot get it deleted.

Every thing I wrote was in Internet thus there will be a link.

I believe that The three people who try to defame the subject is paid .You should take look at their edit history .

Even the subject Thai Wikipedia was deleted all his work.

I want to upload all he did for Thailand and nominate the Deformation paragraph to be deleted.

Could you advise me where to upload the following in Wiki .2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:ADC2:525A:B13E:6C69 00:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to this community for you to smear the intentions of others, completely unacceptable. To those people you should retract that allegation and offer an apology.

I have explained how the works of the author can be held at this site by specific permission of the author. I cannot advise you on how to breach another person's copyright. Your contributions to this point have been problematic, and so has been your approach. This continual addition of works that are under a person's copyright simply needs to stop, and if you are unwilling to stop yourself, then you will be further forcing administrators to undertake restrictive measures. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Index:Canadian Singers and Their Songs.djvuEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept, published more than 95 years ago, so PD

A 1919 work, but some of the poems/songs featured are not necessarily out of copyright...

such as those by Author:Mary Josephine Benson 1965+50= 2015 (which is after the 1996 date for URAA)

A fuller review is requested. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Also Author:Arthur Stanley Bourinot (1893-1969) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  Keep It was published before 1924, and thus is PD in the US. At this point in time, the URAA doesn't matter for works that old.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Letter to Chairman Burr and Chairman Schiff, August 12, 2019Edit

Does whistleblowing count as falling under official duties for the purposes of {{PD-USGov}}? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I think there's quite a bit of bias speaking, but a government employee is supposed to uphold the law and reporting violations of that is with in their official duties.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Absent case law anywhere, I'd be sceptical of that. Acting within the law is an implicit part of the duty for all public employees; but the whistleblower institute is a safety mechanism to allow a safe way for employees acting in their personal capacity to report misconduct, including possible violations of the law, that the normal organisational mechanisms have been unable or unwilling to address. I would think whistleblower reports are ipso facto not part of their regular duties. Public records, yes; public domain, no. --Xover (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. Then again, there's Garcetti v. Ceballos, where SCOTUS held that for 1st Amendment purposes there is a distinction between speech (whistleblower reports) that falls within the employee's duties and that which pertains to other matters. The Court was divided down the middle, and was addressing 1st Amendment issues rather than the issue we're facing, so there's limited applicability. In the case, the test the majority applied was Ceballos' "interest" in the speech: as a government employee Ceballos by definition had no personal interest in speech related to matters that fell within his official duties, and thus could have no 1st Amendment interest in such speech that merited protection.
As a precedent it is weak, but it does suggest there might be grounds for using subject matter that falls within the official duties rather than acting as part of their official duties as the determining factor for a copyright (exemption) determination. --Xover (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)