Wikisource:Copyright discussions

(Redirected from Wikisource:COPYVIO)
Copyright discussions
This page hosts discussions on works that may violate Wikisource's copyright policy. All arguments should be based entirely on U.S. copyright law. 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 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'


Philosophical Writings: Translators modern unpublished translation, or possible gifted translationEdit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)‎.
  •   Keep per billinghurst --Zyephyrus (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2020 (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.


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)
yeah, i would keep it as PD-author-release, here. commons would view failure to follow OTRS as a deletion rationale. i.e. [2]; [3]; [4]. Slowking4Rama's revenge 16:29, 3 December 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 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)
    it is not a matter of trust, it is a matter of standard terms that are added to all content. you should not imagine that organizations will make copyright determinations for you, they will present a "no known copyright" or "for educational use" or NC, as a fallback. we have seen some progress with our partners, but legal departments remain recalcitrant. Slowking4Rama's revenge 13:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
    An observation..."find an explicit release" (per Beleg Tal) and "examine the known facts" (per Xover) seem to me to be mere restatement of what Tarnstrom originally suggested, i.e. "further investigation." -Pete (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Peteforsyth: Not quite. I'm saying that the default assumption for all works are that they are protected by copyright. Tarmstro's argument that we cannot trust the copyright statement provided by the hosting repository (by pointing at a different statement in a different repository) simply means that we have no credible indications to support a deviation from the default. The available facts are that it is a work of joint authorship by the conference participants, who hold copyright in the joint work, and who failed to actually license this particular work in line with the goals of the statement itself (the irony). Unless someone can unearth facts that credibly support compatible licensing, this is clearly copyvio. --Xover (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep pending further investigation, to which I'm happy to contribute. Per what @Tarmstro99: says, I believe the original license was one acceptable to Wikisource, and it may be that the statement has been republished in other places which apply licenses that are not. I will see what more I can learn and report back. -Pete (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks. My own research did not suggest any likelihood of finding information credibly supporting compatible licensing, but I am very grateful for all contributions towards the best possible determination we can achieve. --Xover (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment For what it's worth, version 3 of the CC licenses launched in 2007, several years after the publication of this statement. Version 3 is the first version compatible with Wikimedia TOU. -Pete (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Peteforsyth: Have you been able to unearth any further information on this? --Xover (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Xover: Thanks for the ping. I'm sorry, I realized that I had this document confused with a related one, and got stuck. Reviewing it again now, I do know several of the signers, and I will reach out to them. If you feel it should be deleted in the meantime, I don't object, assuming that an affirmative outcome would mean it could be restored. Or, if you're OK with waiting a couple-few weeks to see what responses I get, that's cool too. Sorry for the delay. -Pete (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Peteforsyth: It's been sitting open since September last year: a few more weeks makes no difference. Please keep in mind though, that we'll need something more than just one or more of the co-authors saying they think that X is the case. If we can't find anything solid that's been published, we'll need the full OTRS dance for all the co-authors (which is a pretty tall order 7 years after the fact). --Xover (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Xover: Yes, I fully understand that -- I'm looking for either (a) clarification that there is a provable compatible copyright license or release from 2003 that we've somehow overlooked, or (b) somebody from that group organizes a poll of all authors and can generate a new license. (I don't know whether all signers were authors or not...possible that the number of authors is lower than it appears, so I wouldn't totally rule that out as a possibility.) I realize it's a tall order, but because of the irony you acknowledge, I think it's worth the effort. Thanks, -Pete (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    I've had a helpful reply already, though no "quick fix." Still looking into it. -Pete (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Little Bunny Foo FooEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Original text found to be probable PD due to lack of copyright notice and migrated to a scan. Work used to scan-back had other lyrics still in copyright, and which have therefore been redacted.

2006 import from enwp tagged as no source and no license for the last 12 years. According to this article its earliest plausible date is 1933, and the most likely range is around the 1960s. In any case, it is still in copyright in the US until some undetermined point after 2028. Our copy of the text is, according to the notes field, from “David Grover's 1997 album Sing a Song of Summer” which would be even worse if there's anything original in there (almost certainly not, but I haven't checked). --Xover (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

If it's an American work, it's easy for it to be in the public domain. If it was legally published before 1978 without copyright notice or legally published before 1964 and not renewed, it is PD. I'd almost argue that we could keep it based on that. If it's Canadian, then the URAA might have restored it, or it might be technically legally unpublished and life+70.
On the whole, I really want to give this a pass. It seems likely that it is purely public domain, and it's clearly abandoned copyright, being around for at least 50 years with no claim of authorship or copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it bears the hallmarks of abandoned copyright. But we have the examples of things like "Happy Birthday" (or whatever song it was) where someone came forward in the 11th hour to claim copyright, based on some baroque set of rights transfers. Given we don't actually have any information about the source of our text beyond a clearly in-copyright 1997 musical album, nor even any information about this work's first publication, I don't see how we can reasonably keep this. All the information we actually do have suggests it is in copyright, and the exceptions (failure to obey formalities) are impossible to determine. That creates a, to me, unacceptable risk for our reusers (and us, but I'm less worried about that).
However, if we want to bend over backwards we could try to pursue precedent regarding oral transmission and copyright versus fixity. The above linked article does tend to point toward this work existing as a purely oral work for a long time, with first fixation into writing happening much later and by a third party. It is possible US copyright has some sort of quirk regarding such situations that will let us have a clear conclusion either way. For example, I believe, NZ, AUS, and Thai copyright law regulates traditional oral works specially. --Xover (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
One could also take the view that the 1997 version was either the reuse of a work that was not under copyright, or is equally in breach of copyright. If it is not found to be renewed then we can retain it if we have taken our reasonable steps to assure ourselves. There is no evidence presented whether the work is or is not in copyright, we just have an indication of when it was first published, and what copyright applies at the time. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
But absent publication info we have no way to check for registrations, renewals, or presence or absence of copyright statements; all of which are essential for determining copyright status. --Xover (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Keep per Prosfilaes --DannyS712 (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep as almost certain to be PD, unless more info comes to light. Worth continuing to research. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The community sentiment appears to be to keep this text under some kind of "I'm guessing it's PD. Somehow.” reasoning. That leaves us with the practical issue of how to resolve the maintenance tags on it: what do we give as a source, and what do we say the license is?
    The source that is actually provided for it is a 1997 commercial audio recording that is clearly in copyright. The arguments for licensing above suggest an assumed {{PD-US-no-notice}} and/or {{PD-US-no-renewal}}. It would be pretty contradictory to tag a 1997 clearly copyrighted work as no-notice/no-renewal, and I don't really understand how y'all can just blindly guess no-notice/no-renewal when the actual source is unknown (we clearly need c:COM:PRP as local policy!), but that is the best I can come up with for this situation.
    Can I get some confirmation that removing the two maint. tags ({{no source}} + {{no license}}), leaving the source as the 1997 recording, and adding the license tag {{PD-US-no-notice}} is in fact concomitant with the community's consensus here? If so I'll close this accordingly, complaining about it all the way, and linking this discussion (I ain't taking responsibility for this!) for further information.
    Pinging discussion participants: @Prosfilaes, billinghurst, DannyS712, Beleg Tâl. --Xover (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • So I found, which provided some history. You can see that the story is discussed in The New Yorker, Volume 45, Part 7, from 1970, so it can be assumed to have been published before then. Having found no copyright for the original source (couldn't find the original), I would go with {{PD-US-no-notice}}. this email, while a hoax with some fake history, makes it clear that the story was known at least by 1997/03/06. Now, even if the story is known and agreed upon, there are variations. For now, I would support tagging as no-notice, and citing the given source as a reference for this specific version of a public domain story - does that make sense? I'm getting sucked into a rabbit hole and will probably do some more digging, but for now that is what I have. Happy holidays, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, here are the full lyrics published April 1970 without a copyright notice. This edition predates any known publication of the lyrics found by any of the researchers linked above, so it could very well be the first edition set in tangible form - which gives us our no-notice and a proper source. The linked work does not give an explicit citation for this song, but notes that uncited songs come from "the authors' experiences with day camps for retarded children." —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    Here is another 1970 full-lyric source, also without copyright notice. This one is a University thesis, properly published the following year (1971). The author claims "traditional sources" as the origin of the song, so this is also a fixation of oral tradition (but the edition I linked above predates it). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    Interestingly, there is a short anecdote similar to the song, with the moral "hare today goon tomorrow", in the essay "Recreation or Wreck-reation" by Wayne W. Womer. The earliest edition of this which I could find is 1941, which also lacks copyright notice. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    According to this 1963 article in the Journal of American Folklore, there were at the time 4 versions in the Indiana University Folklore Archives of a story involving a rabbit "sometimes called Rabbit Fluff" who hits mice on the head and gets turned into a goon by his fairy godmother, with the moral "hare today goon tomorrow". It does not specify the contents of these stories, whether they are the song in question or some kind of precursor like Womer's essay or like this 1945 prose telling of the story. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    @DannyS712, @Beleg Tâl: That was a truly heroic effort by you both: very much appreciated!
    I've grabbed the (now rather unfortunately named) 1970 work, uploaded and index'ed, and made a quick and dirty proofread of just the relevant page. Would appreciate if you'd take a look at Little Bunny Foo Foo and make any corrections and improvements you think are needed (did I mention it was quick and dirty?) before we close this discussion. --Xover (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Xover: thanks for doing that! This has opened up another can of worms now though, as all the other songs in that volume now need to be checked - see User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/Day Camping for the Retarded for progress. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Day Camping for the Trainable and Severely Mentally Retarded/Chapter 4

The work Day Camping for the Trainable and Severely Mentally Retarded is covered by {{PD-USGov}}. However, Chapter 4 contains several dozen camp songs that are not covered by {{PD-USGov}}.

I did some research and found that several of them are very likely to be copyvio. In particular, Girl Scouts USA expicitly claims copyright on the song "Brownie Smile Song"; Woody Guthrie's estate claims copyright on the song "Put Your Finger in the Air"; and Disney may own copyright to the "Johnny Appleseed" song from the 1948 movie Melody Time.

The results of my research to date is documented at User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/Day Camping for the Retarded. I do not think I will be able to get much further information.—Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: Because Day Camping is in source and PD, the ideal action is to censor the copyvio sections of the scan and replace the relevant lyrics with {{text removed}}. The question is therefore what sections need to be so censored. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I doubt anyone will have time or interest to research this further, so I !vote   Delete to the following items:
  • I Want to be Friendly
  • If You're Happy and You Know It
  • Crocodile Song
  • My Hat Has Three Corners
  • Six Little Ducks
  • Where is Thumbkin?
  • Little Tommy Tinker
  • Brownie Smile Song
  • Hi, There!
  • Fido
  • The Wonder Ball
  • The Elephant Song
  • Ha-Ha, This a Way
  • Noontime is Here
  • Johnny Appleseed
  • Put Your Finger in the Air
  • Stodola Pumpa
  • On Top of Spaghetti
  • Kumbaya
  • Happy Trails
Note: all the other songs in this work are either confirmed PD, or this work is the earliest edition of them that I could find and therefore the same logic applies to them as was applied to Little Bunny Foo Foo. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: With regret, and somewhat dragging my feet, I have generated a new DjVu of this with the listed songs redacted. I call bullshit on the copyright claim for "Kumbaya", so I've left that in until the WMF receives a DMCA takedown request (or the community overrules me). The new file is at File:Day Camping for the Trainable and Severely Mentally Retarded (1970).djvu, and I've moved the index, pages, and mainspace artefacts over to that file. And the old PDF has been deleted on Commons. --Xover (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Beleg Tâl: Could we move this to a subthread of #Little Bunny Foo Foo since it springs from there and the two impact on each other? --Xover (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Xover: I placed them separately because I think we have satisfactorily established that the song "Little Bunny Foo Foo" is in the public domain, regardless of the copyright status of the other works contained in that particular edition. We may have to censor Day Camping, or remove the scan backing, but "Little Bunny Foo Foo" can remain regardless. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    But if we—for example—ended up deleting the scan, LBFF would no longer be scan-backed, and the above thread would no longer make sense for anyone reading the archives. But no big deal, I just thought it'd be "cleaner" to do it that way (partly because I've held off on closing the LBFF thread until we resolved all the issues surrounding this work). --Xover (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    You have been doing more on this page than I; I have no objection to merging the discussions if you think best. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    I've merged them now. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Index:Tumors of the pituitary gland.djvuEdit

1998 work and author is still alive. I do not see that we can call this {{PD-USGov}} and I don't see that there is any legitimate licensing that would allow us to retain this work.

Note that I have started the pairing conversation at WikimediaCommons. @Rajasekhar1961: uploader. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

w:Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (established in 1862) published series of books of good teaching value for medical persons. The Institution is closed in 2011. Some of their publications are available in Archives under Public domain licence. They are published by USGovernment. Hence may be considered as {{PD-USGov}} to be used in Wikisource. I am interested in this work, and would like to upload the other books in the series, if it is acceptable to Wikimedia foundation.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology is the publisher, but not the author. The author is not an agent of the US government and did not write this volume while working for the government. An author retains rights to their work unless the author releases them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep Hang on… This scan was uploaded to IA by an archivist at the National Institutes of Health Libraries and is included both in the NIH Library collection and the Federal Collections collection at IA (and the NIH links to it and a copy on Google Books from their catalog). The work contains no independent copyright statement (which is not required by the copyright act but is common practice in publishing all the same, when copyright applies). The series has been published in multiple editions (at least three that I've found), all of which by AFIP, but with different editors. The edition preceding this one has multiple scans fully available on HathiTrust (who are notoriously even more Catholic than Commons on copyright). All of which strongly suggests that this is a product of the AFIP that just happened to be produced as a work-for-hire: that is, the "author" is listed for academic credit, not copyright purposes. The history of the work, which is given in a preface, also describes it as a product of the AFIP, in particular due to drawing on the expertise of their employees and the materials in their archives.
    Bottom line, the balance of probabilities here strongly favours this being a {{PD-USGov}} work. --Xover (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
did you try contacting the author to find out if it is a work for hire? (there are also four copyrighted images.) don't know why you would speculate that authors for a US government publisher would retain rights: different year, same USGov methods. Slowking4Rama's revenge 11:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I should make clear, when I say "bottom line" I mean "bottom line for me". This is not a case where there is an unequivocal right or wrong answer: but for me the balance of the evidence (absent new information) falls down on the side of it being PD-USGov. The opposite conclusion is equally valid, I just don't find the arguments for it persuasive. --Xover (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The Professor's Teddy BearEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
kept as US copyright not renewed

This is a short story by Author:Theodore Sturgeon (w:Theodore Sturgeon) which was included in his 1953 short story collection E Pluribus Unicorn, but which had (probably) been previously published in a periodical somewhere. Can we determine the copyright status of this story? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The ISFDB (the best source for questions like this) says first published in Weird Tales, March 1948. Weird Tales/1948 says both the magazine and story lack renewals; you can second-guess User:AdamBMorgan, but I've not seen any reason to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I had forgotten about the ISFDB. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Index:Japan-Korea GSOMIA (English Text).pdf and file and transclusionEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
File has been undeleted at Commons as {{PD-EdictGov}} (plus, for Commons' policy purposes, PD-JapanGov and PD-KoreaGov).

The file was recently deleted at Commons per this conversation => c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tanka222. I have resurrected the file and moved it here to enWS. We now need to have the conversation whether the transcluded work should be kept, and the associated index: and file: pages.

My first thought on the work is that with the recent US court ruling about government works is that this is likely to fit the scope of {{PD-EdictGov}} — billinghurst sDrewth 02:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

in light of the recent supreme court case, it should be PD-edict. remarkably buro deletion at commons, is not binding on this community. Slowking4Rama's revenge 02:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep Even without the recent USSC precedent I would say this qualifies for {{PD-EdictGov}} (modulo some relatively esoteric points of legal wankery that I am disinclined to take into account for this particular relatively straightforward issue). It is a bilateral international agreement with sufficient "force of law" to obligate both parties, and the countries (in the form of their legal governments) themselves are the parties. Their copyright status in Japan and Korea would depend on any PD-USGov style exemption in their legal code (which I haven't bothered checking), but the US status seems unequivocally to fall under EdictGov.
    PS. The deletion on Commons does seem to be a bit on the bureaucratic side: it looks like they were deleted for failing to slap on the right license templates, not for actually being incompatibly licensed (they may be, but that wasn't documented in the deletion discussion there). --Xover (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The underlying files have been undeleted on Commons. If nobody objects by next time I do a backlog sweep on this page I propose we close this as keep since it was prompted by the deletion on Commons. --Xover (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover (talk) 06:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Project Gutenberg blocked in ItalyEdit

see also

Slowking4Rama's revenge 02:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the rest of the EU is going to go that way, and possibly Wikisource will join them if we get big enough to be noticed. From the EU's perspective, they're not going to tolerate works copyrighted in the EU being available on the Internet in their country.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Ouch! But that's really not a particularly surprising outcome, and a demonstration of the various risks our US-only copyright policy entails. I haven't been following this specific case (pointers welcome!), so I base this only on the headline, but I'd still be willing to bet Commons' will run clear of this while ours will land us square in it if they ever deign to notice we exist. --Xover (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
As we have English works, and UK drops out of the EU next year, that is unlikely to problematic for us, and then that comes down to what the other language wikis are doing. So it would seem that frWS and deWS are primarily the focus. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The UK may still want to block us for that reason; Ireland is primarily English-speaking and has English as an official language, and Malta has English as an official language, so I don't see us as off the hook. Not that I suggest doing anything about it on Wikisource's side; if political maneuvers don't stop them, people will just use VPNs to get around the block.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
VPNs won't help us. The reason why VPNs have not been stopped yet is simple: only a tiny fraction of readers know about their existence and only a fraction of this fraction can use them. If this changed they would be stopped. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll add a "ditto" for what Prosfilaes said. And add that the issue isn't just whether we get blocked from those places, but also the legal jeopardy this places our readers and (especially) reusers in everywhere that's not the US. Large parts of Asia and some parts of Africa (and let's not forget Australia) have English as a primary written language or as a primary written language for certain purposes. In all these cases we put reusers at risk when we ignore the copyright laws of the country of origin; and our contributors from those areas too, but I am more willing to accept that they can make an informed decision regarding their own risk than our reusers. This move in Italy just exemplifies a risk that is everpresent for all these cases so long as we choose to be so US-centric in our copyright policy.
Note that I am not proposing we should immediately change our copyright policy based on one single country being stronzos. But it's a concrete example of the general and ongoing problem with our policy which I think we should consider very carefully going forward. --Xover (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not worried about legal jeopardy for our readers. Unlike torrents, they have no way of knowing who our readers are, and like torrents, trying to chase down random users is unprofitable and backlash-inducing. Reusers are going to have to deal; if you're going to reuse, you need to know the law you have to follow. Certainly Wikipedia strikes me as hugely dangerous for many reusers, as many pages will violate libel or blasphemy laws, or various local laws prohibiting certain viewpoints. (E.g. India apparently bans maps that they don't agree with, and Poland is getting on anyone who thinks Poles might have had a role in the Holocaust.)
Note that "copyright laws of the country of origin" is a bit of a farce; there's a table of countries on w:en:Rule of the shorter term and many countries don't have the rule of the shorter term, like Mexico and Brazil, with English speaking nations including Australia and Canada (at least wrt the US). The list is pretty short, so I don't know about most of Africa or Asia. I don't know what rules are needed to make Wikisource or Commons copyright-safe in all parts of the world, but we're talking at least life+70 (plus wartime extensions?) and 95 years from publication.
Maybe Commons is safer from widescale blocks like this, but I sure wouldn't reuse anything from there without double-checking, with uploads with bad licenses and many, many works that aren't free in my nation (the US).--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Project Gutenberg in Germany has already been blocked for five years, see Court Order. - R. J. Mathar (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Slowking4, @Prosfilaes, @Billinghurst, @Jan.Kamenicek, @R. J. Mathar: I think this issue would be best discussed on the Scriptorium proper, and so if nobody has objections I'll move the whole thread there in the next couple of days rather than just let it slip quietly into the archives here. --Xover (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    Not fussed, I am still of the "do nothing" approach, we comply with copyright and we now move into the area where it favours EU authors for 95 years of copyright. I think that Wikimedia Foundation would love to put their teeth into this one. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Sinews of PeaceEdit

Unsourced, annotated, ("etc.") 1946 speech by Winston Churchill. In 1946, Churchill was no longer PM or held any government post; he was the leader of the opposition and MP for Woodford. The speech is a prepared political speech (warning against Soviet expansion and the Eastern Bloc) delivered at Westminster College in Missouri. As such it is in copyright in the UK (pma. 70) until 2036 and in the US (pub. + 95) until 2041. --Xover (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It is true that Sir Winston Churchill was, at the time of this speech, the leader of the opposition and no longer PM; but this does not change the fact that he was PM and was the principal negotiator with Franklin D. Roosevelt, US President; and Joseph Stalin, USSR General Secretary at Casablanca, Morocco (1943-01); Tehran, Iran (1943-11); and Yalta, Crimea, USSR (1945-02) - although Stalin was absent from Casablanca due to the Battle of Stalingrad. As such, Churchill spoke with, first hand, deep knowledge and authority on the historic and critical strategic dialogue that took place between Allied leaders during WWII. I am not a copyright expert, but I think it is reasonable to suppose that, in practical terms, that it has long been in the public domain. If there are technical copyright issues, I have little doubt that these can be addressed starting with Churchill College, University of Cambridge; Archives or International Churchill Society or other authority. I would be surprised if permission to host the transcript of this speech (text and/or audio) is not granted.
Enquire (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Revision as of 14:44, 10 April 2017 includes an unverified transcript, plus a (broken) YouTube link (user account no longer exists). I found, what appeared to be an authentic full audio transcript (YouTube v=DZBqqzxXQg4) Introduction by President Harry S Truman, with Churchill's speech starting at 08:42 in 55:54 audio. This speech was delivered at Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri as the seventh John Findley Green Foundation lecture series (1937 to 2019, ongoing). If YouTube is not a trusted audio transcript host, I have no doubt that a trusted audio archive can be found, either to be embedded in Wikisource, or else to be added as an EL. In any event, this is a significant speech that should be included as a Wikisource.
Enquire (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
It would appear that the text transcript (although not, apparently, audio) can be found here: Sinews of Peace, 1946 Enquire (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I note that the YouTube (v=DZBqqzxXQg4) audio credits: Licensed to YouTube by SME (on behalf of Sony Classical); EMI Music Publishing, and 8 music rights societies
Enquire (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I am afraid that neither Cambridge nor any other university own the copyright to Churchill’s works. According to information given at International Churchil Society Curtis Brown Group Ltd and its agents represent the Estate of Sir Winston Churchill and handle all copyright permissions. It would be great if they agreed with publicating the speech under some of our free licences, but it seems that their attitude to commercial usage is not compatible with our licenses, which explicitely allow commercial usage :-( But it may be worth giving it a try. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Enquire: I feel your frustration: copyright laws around the world tend to be completely out of touch with how normal people view what is reasonable. In the UK the main term of copyright protection is for 70 years after the death of the author (so 1965 + 70 = 2035 for Churchill, and terms are counted from the end of the year in which the author died). In the US, the copyright term for such works is 95 years from the date of publication (so 1946 + 95 = 2041 for this speech). Many copyright systems have exceptions making some or all works by that country's government ineligible for copyright, but that does not apply when the author in question is no longer in government (and besides, the UKs is one of the more regressive laws in this respect). In US copyright there is also an exception for extemporaneous speech (getting copyright protection requires a work to be "fixed" in some tangible form) that has sometimes been relevant to (impromptu) speeches hosted here, but that does not seem to be applicable here (there is no way Churchill didn't prepare this speech ahead of time). Wikisource policy is that works hosted here must, at a minimum, be in the public domain (either ineligible for copyright, or copyright must have expired) under US copyright law.
As for getting permission to host it… Nothing would be better than getting such permission, but keep in mind that getting such a permission that would actually work is a pretty tall order. Our licensing policy requires a free license, where the word "free" refers more to "freedom" than being without fees. Our main license is the {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} (Creative Commons Attribution+Share Alike) or the {{CC-Zero}} public domain dedication license, which permits others to freely redistribute, reuse, and modify the work, including for commercial purposes. So by licensing this speech for use on Wikisource, the owners of the copyright would in effect be permitting anyone that wants to to exploit it commercially. This goes a lot farther than a mere permission to host it somewhere for academic and educational purposes, and is not generally something copyright-managing organisations are interested in.
If you do get in touch with them about this, please also keep in mind one final "bureaucratic" hoop that must be jumped: we are going to need some way to verify that any such permission has indeed been provided (not just an individual contributor's say-so), for which we have the m:OTRS process. In essence, if the copyright holders are willing to freely license this work, you will need to get them to email the appropriate email address listed on the OTRS page, and the volunteers there will verify that the copyright holder releases the images under an allowable license, that they do so clearly while understanding what that means, and that they actually are allowed to license the images in such a way (e.g. they hold copyright). And the copyright owners must communicate with OTRS directly: forwarding their emails will not be sufficient. --Xover (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Just a small note to OTRS: I think it is not necessary that the organization contacts directly our OTRS. When somebody gives me a permission in similar cases, I usually simply forward our correspondence to OTRS and if the correspondence includes everything needed, the OTRS volunteers approve it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It is distinctly preferred, I believe, since a direct communication is more verifiable than a forwarded version of one, which is easily faked.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: I do not doubt that what you wrote is true and it is obviously true that we need to ensure that whatever is published has the appropriate permissions. What I am trying to convey is that this transcript (text & audio) is already, in reality, in the public domain. Furthermore, it is profoundly in the public interest for it to be hosted on Wikisources. In any case, unlike commercial media, I doubt that obtaining permission would be a major barrier and, as we know, apparently Sony/EMI have already granted permission for the audio to be hosted on YouTube. That is, assuming that they hold copyright, rather than the International Churchill Society or the John Findley Green Foundation who host the Green Lectures. If anyone, I would have assumed that the JF Green Foundation would be the original copyright holders. Regardless of the details of copyright, what is the procedure to secure such permission?!?
Enquire (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Enquire: "available to the public" is a different concept from "public domain". In terms of history, education, world heritage, academic study, etc. etc., then, yes. But in terms of copyright, which is the aspect that our policy cares about, the copyright is owned by whoever is the successor in interest to Churchill's estate. "Public domain" is the status of a work that is either ineligible for copyright protection, or whose term of protection has expired. Since neither applies here, it means the only way we can host it is for the current legal owner of the copyright to license it to us under a compatible license (typically {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} or {{CC-Zero}}). Any copyright owner that is actively managing their copyrights is extremely unlikely to do that, because it hurts their ability to commercially exploit the copyrights (and copyright is primarily an economic right).
The speech as such is Churchill's copyright, passed to his heirs. The recording of the speech has a separate copyright, owned by whoever did the recording. The license tags you see on Youtube are in regards the recording and not the speech itself. The recording permissions are provided to Youtube and others (radio stations etc.) through compulsory collective licensing deals: it is not a license for that individual work, and we cannot get a relevant license through the same channels.
The Churchill Estate (which is not the same as the International Churchill Foundation) owns the copyrights, and they have chosen to use the Curtis Brown Group Ltd to handle licensing. This in itself is a strong sign that they care about commercially exploiting the copyrights, which in turn suggests it is unlikely they would be interested in anything that interferes with those commercial interests (such as a free license).
But if you want to try, you need to start by contacting Curtis Brown. If they are, despite my misgivings, willing to license the speech under one of the licenses mentioned above, you will need to get them to send an email confirming that to OTRS (see the link above for the address). OTRS will need to see that they understand the implications of the license (anyone can use it for any purpose, including commercial purposes!) in addition to confirming that they are willing to release it under that license. Note specifically that it is not sufficient to "get permission" (too vague) or to get a license for use "on Wikisource" (people need to be able to reuse everything we host here).
I don't mean to be discouraging, and nothing would be better than being able to host this here; but in my experience it is extremely unlikely they will be positive to such an approach. --Xover (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@Enquire:Those aren't arguments we use or accept. Lots of things are commonly out there that aren't in the public domain copyright-wise. I know of one instance where something was so much not in the public interest that we rejected it, but in general it doesn't matter; if it's copyright-legal and someone uploaded it, it stays. Sony has granted permission for the audio to be hosted on YouTube, in exchange for the ad revenue on that video; that's purely a commercial issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  Delete Clearly not PD in the UK or US per Xover's analysis. "Because it'd be really nice to have it" doesn't quite cut it. If someone could sweet-talk the rights holders into releasing it under an acceptable licence and they send OTRS an email, sure. But I'm not holding my breath. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me that it's probably {{PD-US-no-notice}}, as there was an advance text of the speech that was provided to the press, apparently without limitations on use, as it was printed in full in many newspapers without any copyright notice. For example, it was published here in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on the same afternoon (which must have gone to press before Churchill even delivered the speech). Probably {{PD-US-no-renewal}} too, though I did only a cursory check for renewal. However, the page would have to be edited to conform to the advance text, as the publication status of any additional material that was added by Churchill would be unclear (unless someone can find a transcribed version of the speech that was clearly published with Churchill's authorization). Toohool (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Here are a couple of sources that mention the advance press copy and the differences with the speech as delivered: [5] [6]. And here is an auction listing showing a copy of the text that was distributed at the lecture - no way to tell if it had a copyright notice, but it supports that there was an authorized general publication in 1946, and therefore there would have to have been a renewal around 1974. Also, I found that Churchill published the speech in a book in 1948, which was presumably eligible for URAA restoration, so the verbatim version of the speech appears to be under copyright until 2043. Toohool (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@Toohool: hmm, interesting. My inclination to delete the unsourced version we have stands, since I think it's more likely to be from a book or something via some website. It's certainly some other version than the paper has: the very first line: "President...., I am very glad" (WS) vs "I am glad" (SLPD).
However, assuming this newspaper was published without a copyright notice (since you have access and mine is pending review, perhaps you could have a quick look at the first and last page for such a thing), does that mean the text on that specific page is PD? Or would we also have to show the advance copy was provided to the paper without such a notice? Presumably such an advance copy wasn't actually published as such, rather it was more a private correspondence between Churchill's people and the papers, so would it matter? A newspaper reprinting under licence an excerpt of a book that was registered and later renewed would surely not drop that excerpt into the PD just by the the newspaper not following copyright formalities, right? My brain hurts. @Xover: any clue what is needed for confidence in this case? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 08:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Things are a bit simpler if we focus on {{PD-US-no-renewal}}, to avoid any questions about copyright notice. I checked the CCE for Type C renewals ("Lectures and other works prepared for oral delivery") for 1973-1975, and also Type A renewals (in case it was registered as a book or pamphlet), and found no trace of Churchill or "Sinews of Peace".
So the only possible point of contention I see is whether there was truly a publication of the advance text. With your point about it being a "private correspondence", you're getting at the question of general publication vs. limited publication. Distribution of copies to a defined group of people, for a limited purpose, with limits on their right to reproduce or distribute the work, is a limited publication, which, for the purposes of copyright, is no publication. In this case, it seems that last element is lacking, as some of the media (at least the Associated Press and United Press) promptly distributed the entire text to their member newspapers for publication. To find that this was limited publication, we would have to believe that both of those organizations violated limits that were imposed on their use of the text. Journalists generally have a practice of honoring embargos and off the record sources, so I don't think we should assume that such a violation was committed, without evidence. We would also have to discount the evidence that the text was distributed to attendees of the lecture, which would undoubtedly have been a general publication (though I admit the evidence of that, the auction listing I linked above, is thin).
As for whether it's better to edit the existing page to conform to the published advance text, or delete the page and start from scratch, I'm indifferent. Toohool (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
If we make the determination that the SLPD version is an un-renewed work that is separate to any copyrighted version (e.g. the 1948 book, assuming that is copyrighted), the best option IMO is to delete or rev-del the page and start again from the page image(s). All three versions are a bit different, so it seems there are at least 3 versions sloshing about. We'd need a full proof-read to switch to either the 1948 book or the SLPD in any case, rather than just slapping down a PD version over the top of the existing version.
WS version SL Post-Dispatch 1948 book
No headings News-style headings (e.g. US at Pinnacle) No headings
President McCluer,... America:
I am very glad I am glad I am glad
somehow or other is somewhat is somehow
So, in fact we have In fact we have
It is also an honor, ladies and gentlemen, perhaps almost unique It is also an honor, perhaps almost unique It is also an honor, perhaps almost unique
However, I suppose if it was that the SLPD version is based on (with editorial changes, e.g. to fit it on the page) one of the copyrighted versions, then it is also copyrighted? Despite being "published" earlier in the same day (assuming we take the day of the speech as "publication" of the lecture materials). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ave Crux AlbaEdit

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

The national anthem of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is usually stated as author unknown, date unknown. According to this 2017 doctoral thesis, the anthem was composed in 1934. The translation does not appear in the source linked by the uploader. I found two editions of this translation in published texts [7] [8]; the former edition states "Courtesy of the Grand Magistry, SMOM", and there is no indication of free license or public domain release in either publication. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

  Comment If it was originally published by the SMOM (which is a sovereign state of sorts) as some kind of law then perhaps {{PD-EdictGov}} applies, depending on how/if it was "legislated". But would need such a source, and that looks pretty thin on the ground unless there's an online SMOM archive (or someone can contact or go to the Magistral Library: And the original is in Latin (naturally), so this English translation is of suspect copyright too.
The second link above also has the score, would be interesting to find where that came from. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete Copyright exception for a national anthem must be regulated specifically in copyright legislation; and even if a law mandates a specific anthem that does not on its own make that anthem exempt from copyright. But there is no copyright law for SMOM; they have no copyright relation with any state; and are not a party to any international copyright treaty. Naturally enough, as even were one to consider them to be anything even remotely like a sovereign state they have only 3 citizens. Every other person associated with them is a citizen of whatever country they hail from.
    In other words… The anthem is simply an anonymous work with probable publication in 1934, and probable place of publication Italy (where the order was primarily located in 1934). In Italy, anonymous works are protected for 70 years after publication. 1934 + 70 = 2004, making it in copyright in Italy on their URAA date (1996). In the US, anonymous works are protected for 95 years after publication, so the original is in copyright there until 2030. Since the original is still in copyright, the translation cannot be in the public domain.
    But even were the original out of copyright, the translation must necessarily have been created after the original. That leaves an exceedingly small window to climb through in order for this to plausibly be public domain in the US, and most of those involve first publication of the translation happening in the US shortly after the original was created. Absent specific information suggesting any such possibility I view that as so improbable as to be effectively impossible. --Xover (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    Agree with the overall conclusion, with some reservations. I don't think being party to a copyright treaty is certainly required to drop edicts to the PD in the US. Recognition of a state is not mentioned in the US copyright code as a prerequisite. When this came up with respect to w:Sealand, the 2018 conclusion was that if you call yourself a state, you lose your laws' copyright (in the US); but in 2009 it went the other way.
    There's no obvious way to show that any (hypothetical) legislation did or didn't even exist, so I have to agree the only real answer is to assume anonymous copyright and delete. But it seems being legislated is good enough for some other anthems without specifically noting copyright-exempting legislation for the anthem. If a local law is cited, it's for "legislative, administrative, or judicial" documents, which doesn't strike me as specifically also taking the anthems from the authors and placing them in the PD. That said, I doubt anyone would attempt a copyright claim on a national anthem if they want it played at the Olympics!
    As an aside, if a PD original did turn up, it wouldn't be too hard to do a fresh translation of those 5 lines if we were sufficiently nice to a laWS denizen. Doesn't mean we can keep this one. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    The Constitution of the Principality of Sealand is a whole `nother issue: it's not just straight up a law, it's a constitution (the instrument from which all other laws derive, handwaving away Common law systems and such factors). If the legislating entity is recognised as a sovereign nation by the US there is absolutely no doubt that it would be covered by PD-EdictGov. The discussions about it have all essentially been about whether it can meaningfully be said to be a law (vs. something that just looks like a law but has no legal effect) when no country on earth recognises Sealand as a sovereign nation. Prosfilaes' 2018 argument (that effectively decided the matter) was regarding "how similar to a sovereign nation" you have to be in order to qualify for EdictGov, and that Sealand just barely squeaks by.
    But a national anthem is not itself a law even if a particular one is mandated by a law. How do you figure it'd fall under EdictGov? --Xover (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't figure for this page, because it isn't an edict, as you say (hence why my original comment was only a comment). But if such a thing did exist, what then? Sometimes the law embeds or appends the anthem - what do we do in that case? (Hypothetical bikeshed alert). I wanted to find a good example which I felt like I'd seen, but the best I could come up with was National Anthem Ordinance (the underlying anthem is declared {{PD-CN}}), and the rest of Category:National anthems is a bit of a mess, most other recent anthems that declare a licence at all have a local PD licence as a "state sign", so perhaps it's moot and all the examples I can think off are PD by that route, which SMOM almost certainly doesn't have. And the only other anthem laws I can find (Russia and India) don't embed the anthem.
As I said, I don't know, or even suspect if such a thing even exists, I was just thinking out loud and vaguely hoping someone might have a smart idea like a huge archive of SMOM stuff that I'd missed, which would be fun for more reasons than just this.
  Delete, in any case, on this incarnation, since I left that out last night. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Pfc. Gibson Comes HomeEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
apparently no notice on text

This is a 1968 Pulitzer Prize winning article from w:The Courier-Journal. The source is behind a paywall, and any copyright records are in print only, so I can't prove the original had a copyright notice. But ten years later, the Copyright Office is listing registrations of copyright, and there are renewal registrations for works published in the Courier-Journal in 1957, and I have a hard time believing that a newspaper that had already won four Pulitzers at this point wouldn't have done something so simple as putting a copyright notice on the paper.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You may be eligible for a free account through the Wikipedia Library if you'd like to see for yourself. Like most newspapers at that time, The Courier-Journal was not printed with a copyright notice. The 1957 works that you note were printed with individual copyright notices, unlike virtually all other articles in the paper, because they were written by John Steinbeck, already a very famous author by then, for national syndication. (See example here.) Toohool (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
And you're right that, 10 years later, they were copyrighting the paper. Here's the masthead from 1978 with copyright notice, and here's the masthead from 1968 without copyright notice. Toohool (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
It strikes me as stupid that they wouldn't add one line to effectively grab 28 years of copyright, and I'd really like to examine every page of that newspaper myself instead of depending on the header. But I'll accept there's reasonable evidence for the claim that there was no copyright notice on the newspaper.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
A useful listing of plays for which a copyright renewal exists is at Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Plays and is a quick resource to consult if a play comes up for discussion here.

In response to this discussion, I have created a list, (currently placed here, but perhaps more appropriately placed elsewhere,) of plays copyrighted in 1925 or later which were renewed in the years leading up to and including 1956—this includes all renewals of 1925–1928 works, and some renewals of 1929 works. The plays are listed in the same manner as they were in the renewal publications—alphabetical by author’s name. I believe that some authors are duplicated, but that is due to the renewal records listing the authors’ names differently in different sections. The standard format is as follows:

;Last Name, First Name
:Work (Alternate Name—optional) [Publication—if published as part of a larger work, optional] (year of copyright)

This list may not be the most accurate, and I hope that others may point out errors, and make corrections, where possible. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC).

Which plays on your list are hosted on Wikisource and are therefore up for copyright discussion on this page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Arizona Proposition 302Edit

I'm going to go ahead and list these here mainly because I have no clue what their copyright status is:

Arizona Proposition 302 was a ballot initiative to provide funding for Cardinals Stadium (passed November 7, 2000). As best I can tell this is the ballot proposition as distributed prior to the ballot. What happens to such a proposition after the ballot? Does it get enacted into some kind of state law or ordnance? Does the proposition itself become some kind of law (in the EdictGov sense)? Are such ballots really just an instruction to local government to pass a law, or otherwise make an appropriation? AIUI this varies from state to state, but I'm on pretty thin ice here.

And I can't really get a grip on the legal status of "The Tourism and Sports Authority" of Arizona. Do they fall under PD-USGov? Are they law-givers so their work falls under EdictGov? They sure look like a mostly commercial entity to me, albeit one playing with taxpayer dollars. They are the authors of this particular document for copyright purposes, so their formal status is central. For any other kind of material I would have said it was clearly in copyright; but since it is at least a quasi-legal document the issue is… muddy.

In any case, the file was uploaded here in 2006 and tagged {{do not move to Commons}}. This is obviously incorrect: a US document is either PD in the US and can be hosted on Commons, or it is not PD in the US and can not be hosted here or on Commons. --Xover (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

  • @Prosfilaes: Any chance you could either say something intelligent on this, or at least give me some pointers on what to research here? This case is kind of a "wet soap" one: every time I try to come to grips with it it just slips out of my fingers. --Xover (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    As far as I can tell, it was the writing of a non-federal government organization to promote something; even if it went on the ballot to describe what the proposition meant, it's not actually the proposition itself. It has no legal standing, so it's not EdictGov, and I don't see any reason why it'd be PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you! --Xover (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Index:The correct pronunciation of Latin according to Roman usage.djvu and file at CommonsEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Kept as {{PD-US-no-renewal}}.

@Zppix: A 1937 work with a copyright statement (fifth page) that would typically ahve it under copyright until 2032. Just labelled as PD-scan at Commons. At there is not claim about the work in any direction. The author Rev. de Angelis is at this time is not further identified. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  •   Keep Published in the US in 1937. In 1937 the term was 28 years, so it would have had to be renewed in 1964–1966. A search of the Stanford DB reveals no renewal. So I conclude it's {{PD-US-no-renewal}}. --Xover (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Constitution of the Hungarian People's Republic (1949)Edit

The translation of the Constitution of the Hungarian People's Republic (1949) comes from a unattributed PDF source at [9], in which it is hosted on Princeton University Program in Law and Public Affairs's website. As the translator and the time of publishing of the translation is unknown, it is impossible to determine whether the file is published free.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@廣九直通車: Looks like this comes from British and Foreign State Papers, v.155 (1949, Part 3), published 1958. You can see snippets matching in pagination and formatting at Google Books, but both Google and Hathi disallow access to the full volume based on the date.
Assuming it's a UK government (Foreign Office, now Foreign & Commonwealth Office, which has Crown status) translation, it's probably OK, since {{PD-UKGov}} applies in that case and 1958 is over 50 years ago. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)