Wikisource:Copyright discussions

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'

Zebra Mussel Act filibuster

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept.

I am copying here the concern raised by Jan-Janko at Talk:Zebra Mussel Act filibuster:

I apologize if this is a moot point, as I'm not super familiar with Canadian copyright law. However, I am somewhat confused (by no means accusing anyone of anything, just unsure); would this be in the public record, as it was presumably open to the public, or would this fall under crown copyright? Their website certainly implies that they hold copyright over their work.

-- Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Pinging WanukeX. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

You should put the {{copyvio}} after the header, so people can see what is the subject. -- Beardo (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Surely, the important issue is what is the US copyright status. This doesn't look like an edict of government - does it ? Is there anything else that would make it PD in the US ? -- Beardo (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Re US and Edict of government, I am not sure as legislative history, proceedings and votes are critically important for understanding the meaning and purpose of a particular statue, which is one of the main purposes of the public policy exemption. I am not sure about the case law around state legislative journals in the U.S. though or any statement / precedent here around actual floor speeches (as opposed to, say, committees and reports). If so, then I would still suspect it is crown copyright within Canada, as the UK has a different history of copyright. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. This is clearly in the public domain in the United States, which is what matters: it falls under Georgia v. PRO’s course-of-legislative-duties test. Canadian Crown copyright would come into play if the Hansard was uploaded on Wikimedia Commons, but that discussion would happen there anyway. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  "Clearly" - on what basis do you say that ? Edict of government is defined as "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments." Does this come under that definition ? How is Georgia v PRO relevant here ? -- Beardo (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Beardo: It’s quite clear if you read the opinion—it is our description which is out of date. “In the same way that judges cannot be the authors of their headnotes and syllabi, legislators cannot be the authors of (for example) their floor statements, committee reports, and proposed bills. These materials are part of the ‘whole work done by [legislators],’ so they must be ‘free for publication to all.’” Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 590 U.S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op., at 9) (quoting Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 253 (1888)). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

    @TE(æ)A,ea. - but how does that make this work an "edict of government" ? As I wrote , does this come under "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents" ? And does Georgia v PRO apply to non-US works ? If not, then, surely, the question of Canadian copyright then becomes important ? -- Beardo (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

    Read the opinion. Where does it say "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal document" is the test? MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

    "Rather than attempting to catalog the materials that constitute “the law,” the doctrine bars the officials responsible for creating the law from being considered the “author[s]” of “whatever work they perform in their capacity” as lawmakers." Which explicitly rejects listing a "catalog of materials" provided by your list: "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents." MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

    @MarkLSteadman - w:Government edicts doctrine - if PD-EdictGov doesn't apply, what license does ? The case that you quote is a US case applying to US matters. But does it apply to Canadian matters as well ? -- Beardo (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

    I'm not an expert in any of this by any means, but a quick reading of Georgia v. PRO seemed to highlight the state's relation to copyright more than anything. Presumably, as the SC only has jurisdiction within the United States, it would default to Canada's treatment of copyright law under the Berne Convention, right? The U.S. can dictate was is and isn't copyrightable in its own borders, but it has no say in what Canada can or can not copyright (and must enforce that copyright internationally through Berne). Jan-Janko (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

    That case defines what is a government edict. It didn't address the part of the defintion: "This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments." So any "edicts of government", i.e. how defined in Georgia v. PRO, by "foreign governments" counts. Re the Berne convention it explicitly covers "political speeches and speeches delivered in the course of legal proceedings: "(1) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to exclude, wholly or in part, from the protection provided by the preceding Article political speeches and speeches delivered in the course of legal proceedings." So the U.S. has the right to define within its own's borders how to treat those.. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

    OK, understood! Jan-Janko (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

    • Beardo: Like I said, it is our statement of the government-edicts doctrine which is out of date; the Supreme Court’s formulation (as set down in Georgia v. PRO, the most recent case on the subject) is of course correct—and that formulation is not limited to “judicial opinions.” As for territorial application, you mistake Wikimedia Commons rules for actual law. On English Wikisource, we only care if the work is in the public domain in the United States, so Canadian law is not relevant unless U.S. law looks to foreign law for any reason. Under Georgia v. PRO, “edicts of government” cannot be copyrighted. This ruling is not limited to U.S. jurisdictions, just like the court case itself was not limited to only Georgia but applied to all of the States. The case’s effect is limited to the reach of U.S. courts, but the holding effects the works of all governments. My quote above could not be more clear: “legislators cannot be the authors of … their floor statements,” and thus, those statements are in the public domain (in the United States) as edicts of government. At no point in the edicts-of-government analysis is the copyright-related practice of the government brought into question; thus, Canadian law on the subject is not relevant to the analysis under U.S. law. Jan-Janko: As to the Berne Convention, international agreements such as treaties are below the Constitution; as the edicts-of-government test originates from the Constitution, any treaty seeking to go against that is null and void insofar as it requires any unconstitutional action. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Index:Kilmer-Abrego-Garcia-Documents.pdf

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Three pages containing copyrighted text were removed from the file.

Specifically the first three pages, a “Gang Field Interview Sheet” prepared by (an agent of) the Prince George’s County (Maryland) Police Department. The remaining documents (a form, two letters, and two opinions) are all of federal origin and are thus not copyrighted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I would suspect that everything but the narrative text is a clear candidate for {{PD-ineligible}}. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

If somebody considers it worth of the work and removes the copyrighted parts, the rest can be kept. Otherwise the whole file will have to be deleted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Jan Kameníček: If you mention it again before the end of what you would consider an appropriate time for discussion, I will cut those pages from the PDF, as the other material is definitely not copyrighted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: Unless there are some doubts that need more clarification, I usually try to close discussions about 2 weeks after their nomination, so I was planning to close this one in about 3 days. However, if needed, it can wait for longer time, of course. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  Could someone email the Prince George's County Police Department and ask for permission to use the narrative text before cutting it out of the document? ToxicPea (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Jan Kameníček: I have removed the three pages in question; could you move the last five pages of the index down, please? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

    Done. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

How we won the franchise in New Zealand

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept: released under CC0, following the request sent to the publisher by IdiotSavant.

(Discussion moved from Wikisource:Community collaboration/Monthly Challenge/Nominations#How we won the franchise in New Zealand)

Index:How we won the franchise in New Zealand.pdf (1955 edition, CC-BY). Would this be suitable for putting in the under 50 pages (or "to fix") sections? Its proofed, but needs images and validation.--IdiotSavant (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I validated the cover, and looked at the other two problem pages. The tiny image at the bottom of the last page seems to be some sort of a printer's mark, not part of the work itself. When magnified, it is illegible (e.g. I can't read the name or address of the printer). I suggest leaving it out and marking that last page validated. The only other problematic page needs someone to crop the image of the author, insert it into the page, and validate the page; then the whole pamphlet would be done. Gnuish (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

There are bigger problems with this pamphlet. There is no publication date in the pamphlet. Metadata at the source claims that it is a 1955 reprint of a 1925 original, but also claims that the author's name on the cover is incorrect and that it was written by someone else. Additionally, the copy at Wikimedia Commons had a CC-BY tag that there was no supporting documentation for. I removed that tag and updated the metadata at Commons. This may well not be suitable for Wikisource, if the authorship is in dispute and the copyright date is unclear, it isn't clear that it has entered the public domain in the US, and all of the alleged authors are dead so they can't issue a CC-BY license for it. Gnuish (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The Massey site I downloaded the PDF from says it is licenced CC-BY, but this may be another example of archives slapping licences on things they have no rights to (in this case, CC-BY is meaningless in Aotearoa, because the underlying NZ copyright expired in 1984 or 1997 depending on which author is accepted)

The article was originally published anonymously in the WCTU's newsletter, White Ribbon, in 1925. The original notes that reprints in pamphlet form can be obtained: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/periodicals/WHIRIB19250119.2.2

Massey has based the copyright date on Bagnall (NZ's definitive national bibliography), who describes it as "a reprint, with a slight expansion of some paragraphs". So I guess that makes it a separate work from the 1925 original. But Bagnall also attributes both versions to Sheppard (which would make it PD-1996); Massey and other later sources nga taonga give Peryman (the editor of White Ribbon) as the author. Which means that unless it was "published" in the US (making it PD-US-nonotice) its still copyright there? IdiotSavant (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@IdiotSavant It might be worth your while moving/copying this discussion to Wikisource:Copyright discussions. If it remains here, it may not be seen by those with sufficient knowledge to assist (This discussion will otherwise be archived soon and I at least cannot be of much help in the matter). Regards, TeysaKarlov (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I have a hard time following this discussion about which authors, and which publication dates. Based on https://digitalnz.org/make-it-digital/enabling-use-and-reuse/copyright-terms-and-the-public-domain-in-new-zealand for posthumous works it would be 50 years from publication so if it was first published in 1955 by either Sheppard (d. 1934) or Perryman (d. 1945) it would be copyrighted in NZ until 2006 and not eligible for PD-1996. If we take the 1925 publication date than it is clearly in the PD in the U.S. If we take it as anonymous publication in 1955 than the 50 year term for anonymous works apply, which would make it also not eligible for PD-1996. So I don't see a condition that it would be {{PD-1996}}. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The pamphlet is not anonymous - both versions (incorrectly) named an author. And its not posthumous, because it was first published in the author's lifetime (in 1925).

Peryman's authorship seems to be accepted. The note about her authorship is in the national library catalogue entry, and the WCTU credited it to her when they did a reprint in 1993 (see Google Books). Which means it was copyright here until 1997, so no PD-1996.

I've resorted to contacting the WCTU (the publisher; they're still around) to see if they have either a 1925 version they can upload, or if they view it as work for hire and can therefore waive US copyright. IdiotSavant (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Perryman died in 1947, if it was published in 1955, how is that not posthumous? 1955 is after 1947. If it was published in 1925 then there is nothing to dispute as it is clearly PD in the US. MarkLSteadman (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• IdiotSavant: In this case, there is no posthumous authorship, because the original text (as written by Perryman) was published in 1925, while she was alive. However, this 1955 pamphlet has some changes to the original text; because the “author” of these changes is unknown, the anonymous term applies (which is apparently 50 years). Because 50 years from 1955 is after 1991, the URAA restoration date, this 1955 pamphlet must be treated as though it had been published in the United States and followed all applicable copyright formalities. Thus, it is copyright until 1955+95+1=2051. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  The 1955 text I see as potentially falling into one of three buckets.

  • It was originally expanded and revised by Perryman before she died, found and then published so a posthumous term applies and hence it was URAA restored
  • It was revised by an anonymous, unknown editor, so anonymous term applies and hence it was URAA restored
  • The revisions are so minor they are below the threshold of {{PD-ineligible}}

  MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Have had a reply back from the WCTU; they regard it as work for hire, and are willing to release it under CC0 so that it can be legally publically available in the few countries where it is still impeded by copyright. Just waiting for it to show up on their website (its a public holiday weekend here, so there may be a delay). IdiotSavant (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

And done: https://www.wctu.org.nz/how-we-won-the-franchise/ IdiotSavant (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Fabulous, well done sorting this out with the copyright owner. — Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

IdiotSavant (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Based in part on Otago’s source record, it appears to be a work about Sheppard with an uncredited author (who is Perryman), which might have been published in 1925. It may be, however, that the 1925 date only refers to the original publication in White Ribbon, and that the earliest date of publication for the pamphlet was c. 1955 (libraries would know this, in part, based on when they got a copy of the book). Given that there are changes (once again, not attributed to an author), of which Perryman could not have been the author (as she was already dead), this pamphlet does look to be copyrighted in the United States. However, that also means that the CC BY release could be valid; but there is likely not to be enough information to make that determination conclusively. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  I contacted Massey, and they said that "The Creative Commons licence appears to have been incorrectly applied in this case."

  Is there any way to check US publication / distribution, to see if no notice applies? IdiotSavant (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Giantflightlessbirds:, is this something your library or other contacts might be able to assist with? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Christchurch City Libraries has a photopy of the 1925 pamphlet in its archive: https://archives.canterburystories.nz/agents/corporate_entities/193

National library in Wellington has an original: https://natlib.govt.nz/records/21620098?search%5Bi%5D%5Bsubject_text%5D=Sheppard%2C+Kate%2C+1847-1934&search%5Bpath%5D=items IdiotSavant (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Undelete Translation:Salvador Allende's Last Speech

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Declined, not fully released into public domain by Chilean copyright laws.

Hello there. This was deleted some time ago as a copyright violation. This is incorrect. The Intellectual Property Law of Chile states in its "Artículo 71 D. [...] Las conferencias, discursos políticos, alegatos judiciales y otras obras del mismo carácter que hayan sido pronunciadas en público, podrán ser utilizadas libremente y sin pago de remuneración, con fines de información, quedando reservado a su autor el derecho de publicarlas en colección separada." ("Political speeches [...] pronounced in public may be freely used without payment, with the purpose of information, but the author reserves the right to publish them in a separate collection"). [1] As a result, this speech is in the public domain in Chile. Bedivere (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

As this is a request for undeletion, I have changed the title accordingly.

If the author still has rights over it that everyone doesn't have, then it doesn't sound like the public domain.

Plus, the "with the purpose of information" might cause issues. PD means that it can be used for any purposes by anyone. — Alien  3
3 3 17:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first. In fact, you may be right. BUT:

Although Chile’s Intellectual Property Law No. 17.336 does not explicitly state that government works are in the public domain, a close reading of the legislative history (available here) reveals that this was indeed the clear intention of the lawmakers. In the original draft of the law, Article 45 explicitly excluded certain government works from copyright protection. The proposed article read as follows: “Article 45.— The following are excluded from the protection of this law: judicial or administrative rulings or decisions, legal texts, and, in general, any public document of the State, such as decrees, regulations, resolutions, official letters, official speeches by public authorities, and other writings of a similar nature, whose reproduction shall be lawful once published by the State, provided that the text is faithfully reproduced.”

However, during the legislative process, this article was removed. At first glance, one might assume that this deletion implied an intention to extend copyright protection to such documents. However, the legislative record shows the opposite. The article was eliminated on the grounds that it was unnecessary: “At the suggestion of Mr. Miranda, it was agreed to suppress Article 45, which excluded official State documents from the protection of the law. These, when confidential, are protected by other rules, and once made public, may be freely used by anyone.” This statement leaves no doubt as to the lawmakers’ intent: once public, government documents—including official speeches by public authorities—are not subject to copyright protection and may be freely used. The removal of Article 45 was not a substantive change, but rather an acknowledgment that such an exclusion was already understood and did not need to be explicitly stated in the law.

Therefore, while the current text of Law No. 17.336 does not include an explicit provision placing government works in the public domain, the legislative history makes it abundantly clear that public government documents, including official speeches, are intended to be freely accessible and reproducible. Bedivere (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I am afraid that even if the orignal article 45 were included, it would not help, because of the part "...provided that the text is faithfully reproduced". Wikisource requires full unrestricted release into the public domain that includes also e.g. making derivative works. See also the previous copyright discussion where the conclusion was that Chilean copyright law merely makes government works reusable without financial remuneration in certain limited circumstances, which is not enough for our purposes. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Public domain means no restrictions, at all, period. — Alien  3
3 3 07:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

That isn't quite true as there are moral rights included in the Berne conventio, they exist in countries like France without expiration, and we don't consider those works not in the public domain, or at least I have never seen an argument to the effect with respect to say, URAA-restored works. E.g. you can be sued by the heir of the author of a public domain work if you try to claim authorship over it instead of crediting the original author. But those aren't what is being covered here. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Coronavirus Disease Outbreak in Call Center, South Korea

Can someone please verify that the license stated on the page is correct? ToxicPea (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Surely the CDC is part of the US federal government and so PD-USGov is the applicable license ? -- Beardo (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The US CDC is just the publisher (I think it's the publisher.) The authors are associated with the Korean CDC and other Korean entities, and nowhere on the page do I see any free license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

"Most of the information on the CDC and ATSDR websites is not subject to copyright, is in the public domain, and may be freely used or reproduced without obtaining copyright permission.

... Copyright-protected materials featured on the CDC and ATSDR websites should include a copyright statement." - https://www.cdc.gov/other/agencymaterials.html

However:

"2) You must utilize a disclaimer which clearly indicates that your use of the material, including any links to the materials on the CDC, ATSDR or HHS websites, does not imply endorsement by CDC, ATSDR, HHS or the United States Government of you, your company, product, facility, service or enterprise."

and

"3) You may not change the substantive content of the materials; and

4) You must state that the material is otherwise available on the agency website for no charge." -- Beardo (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. This article was published in Emerging Infectious Diseases, the contents of which are in the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Okay. It's a pretty bad copy though, since the images are missing and the license is wrong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  • That may be the case, but those issues do not go to copyright and are irrelevant to this discussion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

    What license should it be ? https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/about/general under copyright makes specific reference to CC-BY-4.0. Do we have a licence for something under the Budapest Open Access Initiative ? Or should we just use PD-release ?-- Beardo (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

    Link to the specific issue https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/articles/issue/26/8/table-of-contents which has link to a PDF version as document. CC-BY-4.0 seems appropriate as it is linked from the journal copyright page and aligns with "in the public domain ... proper citation, however, is required." It would be nice if people were clearer with these contradictory in the public domain but licensing and actually used CC if they want restrictions and "public domain" if they don't. MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Contra-Props

This article was published in a British magazine in 1941; the author died in 1946. There is no licence and no justification why it should be public domain. -- Beardo (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Restless Earth

Restless Earth, by William Graeme-Holder (1890 - 1944)

Papers Past has scans here, which includes publication details. First published as a book in Aotearoa in 1933 by the Associated N.Z. Author's Publishing Company (previously serialised by an NZ newspaper in 1931). The publisher's typographical arrangement copyright expired in NZ in 1959. Holder died in 1994, so this book entered the public domain in NZ on 1 January 1995. Am I correct in thinking this is PD-1996 under US law?--IdiotSavant (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Assuming that this wasn't published in the US before 1989, it does look like it is PD-1996. — Alien  3
3 3 08:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

So I guess the next question is whether to bodge together the national library's scan, or set up the document camera and scan my own copy. IdiotSavant (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree, it is PD-1996 (just noting that Holder died in 1944, not 1994 :-). If you need help with creating the file from the scanned pages, try to ask at WS:Scan Lab. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)