Wikisource:Copyright discussions

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

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

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

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

Quick reference to copyright term

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

DiscussionsEdit

Philosophical Writings: Translators modern unpublished translation, or possible gifted translationEdit

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

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

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

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

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

Index:Civil Rights Movement EL Text.pdfEdit

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


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

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


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

"Hi John,

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

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

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

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

  • I think that the release into PD is clear, and the work could be tagged {{PD-author-release}}. I do not think {{CC0}} can be used because the copyright holder did not explicitly link the work to the Creative Commons Zero deed and legal document. I would perhaps have accepted the notice on the talk page if the editor who posted the notice was themselves the copyright holder. However this is not the case and I am inclined to disallow it without proper OTRS. Is it at all possible to contact Duley directly? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    In 2014 the situation was that The author is in his late 90's, quite poor health, and has stopped using e-mail. so I hold that unlikely. And if no followup was forthcoming in 2016, I would tend to think that for internet people to now intrude on an old man with copyright questions would border on being immoral. At least my take is that we have to decide this issue based on the information we already have. --Xover (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep I also understand it as a clear release into the public domain. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Jan Kameníček: If this document was tagged {{PD-author-release}} it would be eligible to be moved to Commons. Pragmatically, how do you rate its chances of surviving a deletion discussion there? --Xover (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Xover: I have almost no experience with deletion discussions there, but if we are afraid that it will not survive there for some reasons, we can keep it here. Or, if we move it and they decide they do not want it, we can move it back here then. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Jan.Kamenicek: The question was meant to probe the logic behind your conclusion, specifically in terms of the standard of evidence we apply. If we are confident that the available evidence is sufficient to conclude it has been released into the public domain, then we should also be confident that it will survive a deletion discussion at Commons. Since I am not confident that is the case absent confirmation through the OTRS process (and neither is Beleg Tâl based on their comment above), I wanted to check whether you deliberately wanted to apply a different (lower) standard of evidence or whether there was some confusion behind it.
    In practice, in these circumstances, if the consensus is to keep this as {{PD-author-release}}, I would not personally transfer this to Commons because I believe it would be against policy there and would be deleted. But another user very well might move it to Commons at any time, unless we used {{do not move to Commons}} to mark it to keep local. But if we do that we are essentially saying that we do not believe this is properly licensed (i.e. that our {{PD-author-release}} tag is a lie). This is unlike the typical situations where a file is PD in the US but not in its home country: in that case there is a genuine difference in policy between Commons and enWS. In the case at hand the policy is ostensibly the same on enWS and Commons, but we are (I suspect) applying a different standard of evidence.
    And if we are doing that then we should be very conscious and clear about that fact. It sets precedent for future such cases, and it impacts the risk to our reusers, so it is something we should approach with deliberation and eyes open. --Xover (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    Well, neither our nor Commons discussions are legally binding, they are in fact both just lay opinions and it is no wonder that our lay opinion can be different from their lay opinion. As written above, I have almost zero experience with these discussions in Commons, but often heard others saying that they are sometimes trying to be more Catholic than the Pope... So by not moving it we are not saying that we are lying about the license, we are simply saying that our lay opinions about some border cases are different than theirs. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    Ah. Thanks! --Xover (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
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 dash.harvard.edu under the terms set forth in the Terms of Use for DASH Repository. These include -NC and -ND restrictions, and so are not compatible with our copyright policy. --Xover (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Notice of Commons DR that may have some relevance to enWSEdit

There is a deletion discussion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:11texta.jpg that may be relevant to us.

This was triggered by a premature transwiki of an image from here to Commons, where the file here had some insufficiently addressed issues around authorship. The file in question, and the related images from the same work, would have ended up either here or on WS:PD eventually in any case (not necessarily to be deleted, but whatever resolution would need community consensus), but the transwiki triggered the need for a discussion there. I'm hoping the wider discussion there may either unearth information or provide relevant arguments to let us more easily make a decision on how to deal with the files here.

The short-short version is that the files have OTRS release, but failed to fully specify authorship for all parts of the work (the images in question in particular), particularly for one of the credited contributors. In addition, a concern has been raised at Commons that the entire work may be either a hoax or essentially an attempt to use WS to self-publish it (which is plausible, but not obvious).

There's no particular action needed from enWS contributors right now (the discussion on Commons only affects the one file transwikied there, and for which we have a local copy), but as I will be referring to that discussion one way or another when we tackle the issue here, the WS:CV regulars may be interested in the discussion. --Xover (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Little Bunny Foo FooEdit

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 https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/the-hoax-behind-little-bunny-foo-foo, 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 4Edit

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)


Category:Minsk agreementsEdit

This category contains two works, both of which have issues.

Both are documents of the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine, originally in Russian. First question: can the originals be considered {{PD-EdictGov}}? They are not by a government as such, but are by/signed by two government officials and a representative of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe intergovernmental organisation.

Additionally, the English translation of Memorandum on fulfilment of the provisions of the Protocol on the results of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group is attributed to Interfax, which is clearly copyrighted. In fact, the version on WS is not precisely Interfax's, but is clearly based on it.

For completeness, the translation of Protocol on the results of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group is by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, so think is {{PD-EdictGov}}. BethNaught (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The English version of the Memorandum is my combination of two different translations, both linked on the page (both had strengths and weaknesses). If the copyright is unsuitable for reproduction, then I will try again to find a government version, and barring that, I could translate it myself.--Mzajac (talk)
Okay, I have found translations of all three Minsk agreements filed at the UN by Ukraine: [5], [6], [7]. These might be better translations, too.Mzajac (talk)

I have now updated those two and added a third, with {{PD-EdictGov}}. I am confidant that is appropriate since these are submitted as attachments to UN sessions by the UN Mission of Ukraine, and so is “any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.”

  1. Protocol on the results of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group
  2. Memorandum on fulfilment of the provisions of the Protocol on the results of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group
  3. Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements

 Michael Z. 2020-01-03 19:46 z

Thank you! That fixes my concern about the translations. I'm not an expert on EdictGov though, so I'd still appreciate feedback from others about the originals. BethNaught (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, and thanks for bringing this up. Michael Z. 2020-01-03 23:03 z
  •   Delete Hmm, let's see…
    The Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine is not a legal entity in its own right, much less a government body. For the purposes of EdictGov assessment it therefore cannot be considered the author of any materials. The texts in question must therefore be considered collaborative works by their signatories. The signatories are acting in their official capacities, as representatives of their governments, but some of the participants do not represent any legally recognised government and must be considered private citizens (they in effect represent special interest groups). Their contributions to the documents would be in their personal copyright. First publication for these documents must, I think, be considered to have occurred in Ukraine; and so the country of origin for copyright purposes, and thus the governing copyright law, must thus also be considered that of the Ukraine.
    The texts themselves are 1) a protocol, essentially the minutes of a meeting; 2) a memorandum of understanding; 3) a list of measures that the group thinks needs to be implemented in order to achieve a stated goal. None of these texts in themselves have any force of law: they are not in themselves a law (they merely mention the need to enact certain laws), nor do they represent the ruling or decision of any recognised legal system under an existing law, nor do they regulate or define practical application of any existing law. Note in particular the (carefully chosen, I imagine) phrasing at the start of these documents: "Upon consideration and discussion of the proposals put forward by the participants of the consultations … the Trilateral Contact Group … reached an understanding with respect to the need to implement the following steps". In other words, all the documents say are that "we talked about it in a meeting, and those present came to understand that it would be really nice if the entities that sent us here would stop shooting at each other and stuff". They do not say "We agree to stop shooting at each other" or "We will enact a law that says we shouldn't shoot at each other": only that "In order for people to stop shooting at each other, we think the following things have to happen". None of the documents obligate anybody to anything, and so they cannot really be considered an international treaty.
    The copyright law of the Ukraine does not have any {{PD-USGov}} style copyright exemptions: their "official work" exemptions are narrowed to apply only to roughly the same material as {{PD-EdictGov}} does. The lack of legal force that makes {{PD-EdictGov}} (US) inapplicable therefore also makes PD-UkraineGov (Ukraine) inapplicable.
    The net result is that these documents are collective or joint works of the persons signing them, some of whom are representatives of their governments but that only means the copyright runs for publication+70 years instead of pma. 70. Ukraine copyright law protects collective works for 70 years after the death of the last author (which means 2085 or thereabouts at the earliest).
    The translations of these documents may be official translations, but the "official translations" bit only applies to official translations of originals that were EdictGov to begin with. The cited UN database is their "Peacemaker" site; actual treaties (stuff that has force of law) are published on UNTC. The UN Peacemaker site links to the general UN copyright statement (which is pretty darn restrictive). Or in other words, documents filed with the UN are often public records but are not public domain.
    The long and short of which is, I cannot see that these texts are public domain or freely licensed under any of the theories put forth so far. --Xover (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, interesting. Thanks, user:Xover.
If by “some of the participants do not represent any legally recognised government” you mean the “DNR” and “LNR” representatives, they do not belong to the Trilateral Contact Group, and it is documented that they did not write the agreements, only showed up to plant their signatures. I can probably dig up sources to support this if necessary.
According to my dictionary, an edict is “an official order or or proclamation issued by a person in authority.” While these documents are not laws, they are official proclamations by governments, stating “we said this” or “we agreed to release this.” Unfortunately, the US Copyright Office (Compendium, § 313.6(C)(2) Government Edicts) does not seem to define edict except by a short list of examples and “. . . or similar types of official legal materials,” but it does also refer to a legal precedent citing “the products of the labor done by judicial officers in the discharge of their judicial duties,” which in no way restricts the definition to the listed examples.
I believe all three original documents were physically signed in Minsk, Belarus. Versions were published on government websites in Ukraine, in the Russian Federation, and on OSCE.org (“This site is managed by the Communication and Media Relations Section at the OSCE Secretariat in Vienna, Austria”, copyright statement).
At least one was a PDF file on https://www.president.gov.ua/en, with a notice at the bottom of the home page “All materials featured on this site are is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International” (Ukrainian and Russian-language versions of this notice are also found on the site).
I think there was also at least one on http://kremlin.ru, with notice at the bottom of the home page: “All content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International” (also stated in Russian).
If none of that is useful, I would be willing to try to contact the Ukrainian government or the OSCE for explicit permission. Any advice? Michael Z. 2020-01-28 03:40 z
@Mzajac: For stuff that's signed by multiple parties and whose wording is negotiated and approved by those parties, I think the only sensible view is that the works in question are collaborative works by all those parties that have signed it. There are other settings where a work is clearly authored by one party (usually an organisation of some stripe) and just signed by other parties, but I don't think that applies here. I'm also sure lawyers could fill several thousand pages arguing the precise definition, but the above seems a good enough approximation for our purposes here.
I don't think the physical location where the documents were signed is particularly relevant. Neither is what websites republished them under what (probably inaccurate) blanket copyright statements. What would matter for copyright purposes is where they were first published; and since this is inherently an Ukranian matter, that seems a reasonable choice of copyright law. If there is another jurisdiction with credible claim to competence and with material differences in copyright regime it might be worth digging into, but Ukraine does not appear to differ markedly from the norm here.
Regarding edicts… The "product of officers of the court doing their job" language goes to the heart of the PD-EdictGov exemption in the US: it is a fundamental principle that those who are bound by the law must know the law. The exemption is thus, broadly, for any work that somehow carries the force of law; either by being a law itself, or by being an ordnance or similar founded in such a law, or by being some competent guidance on interpreting the law (which covers judgements in court). This is fundamentally different from the PD-USGov exemption which is, in essence, based on the principle that work paid for by taxes should belong to the taxpayer. PD-USGov applies based on the identity of who produced a work; but PD-EdictGov applies based on the legal force of the work. A typical international treaty obligates a signatory country to act in specific ways, and as such behaves similarly to a law, and, in fact, are often incorporated into domestic law in some fashion. These documents carry no such force: they obligate nobody to nothing.
If you're going to try to get explicit license to these works you would need to use the m:OTRS process (and I would suggest you ask for advice from the OTRS volunteers before making contact: they have experience with such situations). However, so long as we're dealing with a collaborative work you would need to obtain a release from all the co-authors; including the personal ones (those signatories that did not at the time represent an internationally recognised government). I would not advice sticking your hand into that particular hornets nest, and I don't expect your chances of succeeding to be very good, but that's the only way I can see to resolve this. --Xover (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
User:Xover, copyright is held by creators. The “D/LNR” signatories neither negotiated nor wrote these agreements. They only added their mark after the fact. They do not hold copyright. As far as I know, they did not publish these works. But let’s not waste time arguing this point, because it doesn’t matter.
The discussion about authored by “multiple parties” or “clearly authored by one party” which is actually “an organisation of some stripe” is also neither here nor there. Does the Compendium say anything about this? No. The Trilateral Contact Group names itself in its own documents. Its members are named too. So there you go.
But you are quite are right, what’s important for copyright purposes is where versions of these were published: in Ukraine, in Russia, and in Austria. If you have a claim that any of these were illegal publications and don’t represent copyright ownership, then I invite you to challenge them in court. Barring that, we have no basis to disqualify, for example, the Russian Federation’s right to publish of a version of these documents of its authorship under its copyright in its territory.
What does “inherently a Ukrainian matter” mean, and how is it relevant? Copyright is about authorship, not subject matter. US Copyright law does not recognize whatever this principle is, as far as I can tell. The Russian Federation authored it and published it is what matters (and, incidentally, this indicates it is an RF matter too).
You misquoted “officers of the court,” a phrase which does not appear in the Compendium, nor in its citation of the law that it interprets. It refers to issuances of governments, including a non-comprehensive list of examples legislative, judicial, administrative, and etcetera. (I don’t understand this: “it is a fundamental principle that those who are bound by the law must know the law.” Fundamental to what? No, they don’t have to know it, they just have to obey it. But so what?) Kuchma and Zurabov were legal officers of their respective governments, which legally published these documents.
“Edicts of government, local or foreign” are in the public domain in the USA. Wikisource refers specifically to 313.6(C)(2) of the Copyright Compendium. Admittedly the examples it gives are all examples of laws, but it refers to a legal precedent about “the labor done by judicial officers in the discharge of their judicial duties.” And we know by precedent that edicts also include treaties, which are understandings and agreements amongst governments.
Ambassador Zurabov of Russia and Leonid Kuchma of Ukraine were legally appointed by their states to negotiate and write the official text of these documents, and ambassador Heidi Tagliavini was also official representative of an international organization of which these states are members. The documents don’t resemble the Compendium’s counterexamples of documents that are not government edicts: “a tourist magazine written and published by Arizona’s department of tourism or a map created and published by the public transit authority for the city of Detroit.” As far as I can tell the Minsk documents represent, in their own words, an “understanding,” and a “bilateral ceasefire agreement,” written and signed by legal representatives of states. It is an edict by officers of these governments, published by these governments, which makes them PD in the USA. Michael Z. 2020-02-06 03:48 z
It is a fundamental principle of just rule that those ruled over have a chance to know the law, that someone can not be convicted (or rightfully charged with or arrested for) some secret law they could not have known of, or some law established after they committed the act. How can it be just to order someone to obey a law they could not know? Agree or not, but that's the model to think about. I'm not sure that treaties that aren't self-executing should be PD-Edict, but that seems to be established, and I wouldn't have wanted to cut that edge.
This does not resemble the counterexamples, no. But life is not always that neat and convenient.
IMO, Memorandum on fulfilment of the provisions of the Protocol on the results of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group looks like an edict, imposing restrictions on all and sundry. Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements and Protocol on the results of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group do not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, user:Prosfilaes. I take you mean that the principle is more or less that public proclamations of governments need to be disseminated to serve democracy and protect the rights of the people affected. Seems fair. These three proclamation very much affect the people of Ukraine and the Donbas region, as well as foreign fighters in Ukraine. They also inform the general public and the decision-makers and participants in Kyiv, Moscow, Vienna, Donetsk, and Luhansk, and everyone under them, including members of the mentioned “illegal armed formations” that may profess some autonomy, of the expectations and obligations placed on these persons.
The Memorandum refers to and depends on the Protocol, and so if it is an edict then the Protocol must be as well. The Package of Measures elucidates and completes the mutually agreed vision of the terms of the Protocol, whose implementation cannot be completed and evaluated without it. Logically, the three Minsk Agreements must be edicts, either all or none, and they constitute the official public proclamation of the “Peace Plan of the President of Ukraine,” and the “initiatives of the President of the Russian Federation.” Michael Z. 2020-02-11 17:05 z  cc. user:BethNaught, user:Xover.
@Mzajac: You misunderstand. The principle underlying the Edict of Government exemptions in US copyright is that the law must be available to those who are bound by it (i.e. a country's citizens). This includes, obviously, any document that is an actual law. If that law says "All hamburgers must be served with cheese and pickles", and the Department of Commerce (the goverment department with jurisdiction over trade and commerce) issues an administrative decision that says "Cheese, in the context of the Cheese & Pickles for Hamburgers Act, must be understood to include American cheese and other cheese-like artificial products", then that decision will have some force of law (it extends and explains the actual law). If the Onion Growers Association of America then sues, claiming that any pickled vegetable is a "pickle", and not just dill-pickled cucumbers, then the court decision in that case (regardless of outcome) will be case law related to the Cheese & Pickles for Hamburgers Act and necessary to correctly interpreting (and thus obeying) the law. All these (and similar cases) are covered by the Edict of Government exemptions, and all of them relate to the law and force of law. This exemption is not itself actually codified in the Copyright Act (iirc, ianal, etc.): it is an exemption derived from a Supreme Court case that the Copyright Office has incorporated into their practice by refusing to register copyrights for such materials.
In the US, there is another exemption, that is codified in law, related to works of the US federal government. The short version of this is something along the lines of: if it was funded by taxes and made by public servants, it should not get copyright protection. This affects works of the US federal government only: not any work by a non-US government. Most countries have some regulation for works by the government in their copyright laws, but most of them correspond in their definitions most with the Edict of Government exceptions (i.e. only laws and related matter is ineligible for copyright) and not with the US Government Works clauses.
Applying this to the case at hand, your argument is based more on a "Government Work"-style exemption than an "Edict of Government" exemption. I have asserted above that since these documents do not contain any language that obligates anyone to do, or refrain from doing, anything at all, they cannot be covered by Edict of Government. Prosfilaes has, partially, disagreed on one of those documents. Looking at it quickly now (a bit pressed for time, sorry) I find their argument plausible, but will have to look into it more closely to see if it also persuasive. In the mean time, look at the documents in light of the above: the one Prosfilaes mentions contains language like "[Parties] shall [do this]" and "[Type of action] shall be banned" and so forth, but the others are mere listings of facts and observations with no obligations for anyone. --Xover (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: but the Government Printing Office doesn’t exactly say that. Anyway, “edict of a government” is definitely not restricted to a narrow definition of “law.” It is clear from the GPO’s examples and counter-examples that there is a huge grey area in between them, and I have no doubt that this is on purpose, to allow a liberal interpretation. They are undoubtedly more like the examples than the counter-examples. And it is clear from browsing the members of Category:PD-EdictGov that it is much more than just “law,” including treaties, and including many other unilateral and joint announcements and statements that place no obligations or prescriptions on the parties or anyone else. Look for documentns with communique, memorandum, proclamation, protocol, or statement in their title, for example,
By the way, government treaties, proclamations, and statements are edicts upon their publication, not upon their ratification, not upon their entry into force of law, and not dependent on whether they have been ruled as legally valid or invalid by government or judicial body like a court. We can’t determine whether the Minsk agreements place any legal obligations on anyone or not, whether they carry any force of law or not, until this question is tested in a court of law. So our opinion on whether they are an edict or not cannot depend on this. Michael Z. 2020-02-15 19:49 z
It's a Wiki; looking at the members of Category:PD-EdictGov gives you one person's opinion on the matter. I've changed White Paper on Indian States (1950) to use PD-1996, because that's obviously correct. Note that Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State is proposed for deletion below. We've generally asserted that unenacted law are not edicts; they are proposed edicts. I find Protocol on the results of consultations of the Trilateral Contact Group to be clearly not PD-EdictGov, because proposed rules or ideas about what should be rules aren't edicts in any sense. I've seen nothing implying that a submission to a court or a proposed law sent to a lawmaker becomes PD until it becomes an edict, and even that can be limited. (E.g. Action Comics #1 can be read online via attachment to a certain judicial ruling, but nobody has interpreted that judicial ruling saying that it was copyrighted by one of the parties as putting it in the public domain.) Nor do discussions in a lawmaking body automatically enter the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
You misstate when you say the principle is about democracy, and that leads you to stretch the principle. The preamble of the Code of Hammurabi is not clear about it, but the principle has been understood from it. To quote a US judge (via w:Edict of government):
It is a maxim of universal application that every man is presumed to know the law, and it would seem inherent that freedom of access to the laws, or the official interpretation of those laws, should be co-extensive with the sweep of the maxim. Knowledge is the only just condition of obedience. The laws of Rome were written on tablets and posted, that all might read, and all were bound to obedience. The act of that emperor who caused his enactments to be written in small letters, on small tablets, and then posted the latter at such height that none could read the letters, and at the same time insisted upon the rule of obedience, outraging as it did the relations of governor and governed under his own system of government, has never been deemed consistent with or possible under ours. (Banks & Bros. v. West Publishing Co. (1886))
The Copyright Office takes it somewhat farther than the courts have, but that's the binding principle.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Regarding "Memorandum on fulfilment …", on closer scrutiny, I not only find your argument persuasive, but must mea culpa not having seen that at the outset. Its language and arrangement clearly fall within the scope of EdictGov to the degree treaties and other international agreements generally do (I agree with you regarding the self-executing aspect, btw). --Xover (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

La Frailocracia FilipinaEdit

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

This translation by Leonor Agrava is listed as {{PD-1923}} but was actually published in 1979. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  •   Delete Everything I find suggests 1979 is the correct year of publication (so pub. + 95 = 2074). I can find no certain vitals for the translator, but there's one 1940 census record that suggests she was born in 1925 which sort of fits. If so, pma. 70 is also highly unlikely even if the translation was published posthumously. --Xover (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Pub. + 95 was over in 1978, so it's the later of 2047 or life+70.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete per Xover --DannyS712 (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-StateEdit

In a recent discussion, it was determined that this 1985 collection of works could be hosted because all of the documents were official translations of official documents, and therefore covered by {{PD-EdictGov}}.

However, I have had a closer look at the documents themselves, and none of them appear to be edicts of government. (They are all letters, speeches, manifestos, and similar documents.) Therefore, {{PD-EdictGov}} does not apply. Similarly, the North Macedonian exemption from copyright for "official texts of a political, legislative, administrative and judicial nature and their official translations" does not apply, and therefore the documents, being copyrighted in NM in 1996, would have been subject to URAA. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@GStojanov: this discussion affects your contributions. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment So we are back to separately determining copyright on the original works of the authors based on when first published (not date written); and the copyright of the translations. The contained works of Author:Georgi Dimitrov may be out of copyright if publication can be demonstrated, so it comes to the translations. I am less certain about BT's comments that the translation licence applied is not relevant as they are definitely political statements, there is nothing more political than nationalism though one would need to understand the implementation of the NM copyright law a little more. Are their definitions in the legislation on what is political? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Billinghurst: North Macedonia is a Berne signatory and Berne makes protection for written speeches, letters, etc. mandatory (Article 2). These copyright exemptions in national laws are generally based on the language in Berne. Berne has an optional (national laws has latitude on implementing) exemption for political speech, but not for a (written) literary work in the form of a speech.
    Exemptions for translations are only for translations of works where the original was exempt from copyright: no work becomes public domain merely by being translated (officially or otherwise). Since that was not the case here, the translations themselves are protected by copyright.
    Since no obvious exemption applies, we must presume that the publisher used the originals for their translations under some form of licensing agreement; and that licensing agreement does not apply to us. --Xover (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The Magic MountainEdit

Concerning File:The Magic Mountain.djvu and Index:The Magic Mountain.djvu, it seems that the publication dates printed are incorrect. (See Wikisource:Scriptorium#Bad_works_on_the_Digital_Library_of_India? for more on the general case.) w:The Magic Mountain says a 1924 original publication date (confirmed by Cliffnotes,, etc.) and a 1927 original English translation date (the earliest date I can find in HathiTrust). I can't imagine the 1919 date is correct, and given that, I see no reason to doubt the 1927 date for the translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Messrs. Martin Secker have fixed June 9 for the publication of "The Magic Mountain," by Thomas Mann, The English version is by Mrs. H. T. Lowe-Porter, translator of "Buddenbrooks."

—The Times Literary Supplement, Thursday, May 12, 1927; pg. 329; Issue 1319.

so definitely 1927, so definitely doctored. Very disappointing. We should be looking to alert archive.org to the problem. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

This particular scan is clearly not a 1919 work, as it refers to 1943 works in the back matter.
A quick look at the dates in the front images shows the "19"s are not simple copy-pastes, but they do have similar defects, which could indicate tampering before the bitonal compression (or adjacent identical sorts have similar, innocent, printing defects, also possible). Also the second 19 on the title page is misaligned and a few pixels lower.
Volume 2 has no publication date shown (hmm), but the page after the title page says "first published June 1922". The month is right, per the above review. The second 2, however, while not a pixel perfect clone, has the same defects as its neighbour (look at the top right island of the 2s, there's a divot at the top right edge on both). Odd, indeed. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I have to wonder if the back of the title page was scanned, over-cropped and then stretched to fit the expected page size, or if the two-up scan for the version was misprocessed, because the translator's note looks squeezed. In any case, that would mean that the doctoring predated the scanning or carefully matched it. Maybe somebody working at the program had a couple works they uploaded deleted, and is quickly doctoring the books before scanning? With care, you could apply a white sticker over the original text before scanning and given the B&W nature of the scans, nobody could tell? You could even remove many stickers afterwards, and nobody could tell. Especially with that back matter, I can't see any value in making these type of changes historically, and currently it seems only important at the scanning to IA level, since both we've found move it before the 1923 line. (Of course, if it hadn't been for the copyright issues, I wouldn't have noticed this one, so tiny biased sample.) Poirot Investigates (the other book I found with a false date) is missing the back third (cared enough to doctor the date, but not upload the whole book?!?) and Poirot Investigates (Manipuri) is a scan from the same library of a (2004? 2008) modern translation, so, it's just weird.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
That one certainly looks like the date has been doctored. The last "1" in "1921" is very, very similar to the first one (almost pixel perfect), and it is misaligned vertically. So it looks like a (sloppy) clone-tool job at some point in the process prior to final compression to me.
And another one: Lord Edgware Dies. Published 1933, this scan states the original edition is 1923, and the "2" is misaligned. This is also a later reproduction, not the 19(3)3 edition, as is clear by the stylised title which is unlikely in a 30s printing. Moreover Berkeley Books was founded in 1955 - I think this is the 1984 edition. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 11:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The Magic Mountain scan claims to have been published by Secker & Warburg in London in 1919. Martin Secker may indeed have published The Magic Mountain at some point (the 1927 English first edition was presumably his), but Secker & Warburg was not formed until 1935 when Secker went broke and was bought up by Fredric Warburg. They now operate as Harvill Secker. No book printed prior to 1935 should have "Secker & Warburg" (but it may occur in bibliographic databases for various reasons). --Xover (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe reaching, but this 1946 edition looks like it might be the undoctored source? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
i am finding a renewal here page 714 1955 but no second renewal, only a RE0000057751 "The Making of Magic mountain. By Thomas Mann & Helen T. Lowe-Porter." in Atlantic monthly of 1953 renewed in 1980. [8] -- Slowking4Rama's revenge 00:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean second renewal? Works got a 28-year starting term, then an (eventually) 67-year renewal term. They didn't get a second renewal, and this didn't need one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I've previously noticed that in.ernet.dli / Digital Library of India has a fundamentally shoddy relationship with copyright, so I always check files from there extra well. However, outright forging title pages etc. is a whole other level of unreliability, not just in terms of copyright, but in terms of the integrity of the work, the associated bibliographic data, and, ultimately, literary history. This offends me. And it raises the question…
    Can we trust anything DLI has touched?
    Even if you don't care about copyright violations, the outright forgery on display here means the trustworthiness of their scans (much less the associated bibliographic data) can no longer be presumed. Commons has ~1200 files tagged with in.ernet.dli alone (not all files from there are so tagged), and these all now need checking (to varying levels of detail). I have no idea how we actually verify ~1200 files when we can no longer trust even the scan to reflect reality. --Xover (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    Have you tried sending DLI a letter of concern about issues like this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    DLI was certinaly aware some issues back in 2017- (https://web.archive.org/web/20170909022047/http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    Index:Zofia Kossak - The Convenant.djvu, File:Zofia Kossak - The Convenant.djvu. The scan claims the book was published by Allan Wingate in 1911. Allan Wingate was founded in 1944. The author, Zofia Kossak-Szczucka was born in 1889—so 22 in 1911—and most her other works started to appear in the 1930s (she was a Polish WWII resistance fighter). Which jives well with the actual publication date for this work: 1951. Also a DLI scan. --Xover (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Ankry: You may wish to be aware of ↑. --Xover (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    There was also Roy 1951 edition of "The Convenant" (I have no access to it to check whether there was a copyright notice there), but even if there was a copyright notice in this edition, the copyright for this book was not renewed. Polish edition ("Przymierze") was published a year later (likely due to long publishing procedure in Poland that time), so the English one is the first edition. I do not think there is a copyright problem with this particular book and publishing date is not fake. However, the scans are poor and likely not complete, so I will not worry if you decide to delete this book. Ankry (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Ankry: Note that I am not so much concerned with its copyright status, as the fact that it has been doctored to appear as if it was published in 1911, 40 years before its actual publication date. Not to mention a publisher which did not exist at the time of the claimed publication.
    But on initial assessment, if this was first published in the UK in 1951, the term is pma. 70; meaning it is in copyright in the UK until 1968 + 70 years = 2038. That would make it in copyright in the source country on the UK's URAA date (1996), and so in copyright in the US until 1951 + 95 years = 2046. The situation in Poland is similar to the UK (pma. 70).
    (PS. Isn't it The Covenant, not The Convenant? I think the extra n was just a typo by the uploader at IA, but I'm not familiar with the work so I may be wrong.) --Xover (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Xover: I assume that it was published simultaneously in UK and US as the publisher declares on p. 4 (the 1911 date there is clearly fake) and on the title page. If you know, how to verify / reject this, let me know. Same info can be found in library records. Ankry (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Ankry: That's sort of my point… we can't trust anything on that page because it has unquestionably been forged. We'll need external verification to determine its actual copyright status. The above assessment was based solely on your assertion that it was first published in the UK: if it was actually published simultaneously / within 30 days in the US the whole assessment changes. --Xover (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
    That is why I verified this in library catalogues: Polish National Library has two 1951 English editions of this book: Wingate's (London & New York) and Roy's (New York) (unsure in the links are permanent; permanent linking directly to library catalogue is not possible). And the books are definitely not PD in Poland and UK. But IMO, they do not fall under URAA due to being US publications (with or without copyright notice). @Xover: Ankry (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Ankry: The Wingate does not appear to have been published in the US (they just had offices there). The Roy edition looks to be the US publication, presumably in some kind of partnership with Wingate. UK newspapers review (and print ads for) the Wingate edition from January, but US newspapers begin reviewing the Roy edition in June. There are some mentions in rural US newspapers in March, but these appear to be talking about the UK edition. From the evidence, then, it does not appear this work was published in the US within 30 days. --Xover (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Xover: Well, so I'll delete the file on Commond due to URAA. Thanks for investigation. Please delete the index and pages. Ankry (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    This is tagged as no copyright notice, which might or might not be true. But note that The Magic Mountain has a blank space where a later edition has a copyright notice. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the copyright notices have been erased. Lots of DLI scans have no copyright notice at all, which I find somewhat convenient, since that's not an especially common oversight. For example, Presidential Agent (pub. 1944) does not have any copyright line on the reverse of the title page, but the very similarly typeset One Clear Call (pub. 1948) by the same publisher does. I doubt a publisher would neglect this line, when the previous year (1943) [Wide is the Gate] had at least an "All rights reserved". However, I can't immediately find a smoking gun of an alternative scan of a DLI book that shows a disparity. The closest I can find is this and this, where one page is totally blank, which is not quite as good as finding a page with only part of it missing. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: The editions of "The Return Of Lanny Budd" you pointed out above are UK editions and as non-US editions they likely have no copyright notice. Ankry (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hrishrikes: had similar problems a few years back with a P.G. Wodehouse novel (Right Ho, Jeeves) uploaded from DLI that was doctored to appear as published in 1922, but was really a 1934 publication (per hard-copy resources in my library). I speedied it on 7 June 2015 as a copyvio. (Brief conversation here.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)