Open main menu

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 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'



Index:To the Victor Belongs the Spoils.djvuEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived :
Deleted as copyvio, and notified Commons. --Xover (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Raised a concern here back in 2014. and not much happened since then.

Bringing it here, so that there is at least a disscussion.

The problem is the inclusion of 'third-party' images which are NOT necessarily under the same Creative Commons license as the text. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Australian photographs taken before 1955 are public domain now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Wrong country: Wikisource is hosted in the United States, not in Australia. It says that the document was published in 1999, and if this was when the photographs were first published, then they will be unfree for several more decades in the United States. I can also not find any evidence that the Creative Commons licence claim for the text is valid. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
My recollection is that the uploader of the original PDF, which was then moved to Common and converted to DJVU because the PDF wouldn't display, said his contribution was CC. This probably need someone with admin access at Commons and English Wikisource to do trace back what the originals were linking to. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Australian photographs created before 1946 were public domain in Australia in 1996 and would not have been restored by the URAA in the U.S. It is unlikely that photographs taken from external sources would have been first published in that paper. If the Creative Commons license is not valid, that is another matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Australian photographs were in the public domain 50 years after the making of the negative, nothing to do with publication.section "Provisions as to photographs" Again having and researching an evidence base for any argument would be useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
When you state that something is in the public domain, you must also state in which country it is in the public domain. This is in particular important in countries which do not use the rule of the shorter term, such as the United States. No Australian photographs created before 1955 entered the public domain in the United States 50 years after creation of the negative. That's when the copyright expired in Australia, but USA uses different rules. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The vast majority of such works expired in the U.S. when they were published without a copyright notice. Photos created 1946 and later could well have an issue though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Right. Australian photographs which were published usually entered the public domain either immediately upon publication (no notice) or 28 years after publication (no renewal). There could be some which were published with notice and renewal, but I suppose that's uncommon for non-US works. The main problems are photos not published until after 1963 (no renewal needed) and photos created after 1945 (URAA automatically added any missing notices and submitted any missing renewals). In either case, the copyright didn't expire in the United States 50 years after creation; that was only the case in Australia and in countries which recognise the rule of the shorter term. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Unless there is some evidence that a photo was kept unpublished for some time, the usual assumption for foreign photos is publication without notice. That also precludes renewals being an issue, though that is also a fallback sometimes if it turns out there was a notice. But yes, the main problem would be photos created after 1945 -- those would have had their U.S. copyright restored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Newspaper photographers seem to take lots of photographs of each event but only end up publishing one or two of them. Family photographs are also usually unpublished. Some of these unpublished photographs might later end up somewhere and become published a lot later. Therefore, it seems that most photographs are unpublished and that we can't assume that a photograph is published unless we have some indication that this is the case. Also, it does not seem safe to assume that a photograph was published without a notice, in particular not after many countries started signing the Universal Copyright Convention which mentions copyright notices. Most European publications currently contain a copyright notice, although this was a lot less common in the past. The only thing we can safely assume is that pictures were published without a renewal as there should have been very few people outside the United States who bothered submitting a renewal to the United States authorities. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Some of the images post-date 1955. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (To the Victor Belongs the Spoils)

Ok, this has now been sitting as a known copyvio since 2014 (that's 5 years!) and nobody has worked on it since ShakespeareFan00 did the work to determine what copyright statuses they could back then. This discussion has pretty much just confirmed that anything in there not published pre-1946 is a copyvio, and has been sitting here unclosed for 3.5 years! And the file is hosted on Commons, where I can pretty much guarantee that if we file a deletion proposal it will get nuked as soon as someone gets to that point in the backlog.

Even allowing for a generally conservative approach and wanting to salvage as much as we can, there are limits to what legal liability we can and should shoulder (and subject our volunteers and reusers to) and how much effort we should expend on saving this particular work (where, I'll note, the original author has been notably lax about copyright for someone wanting to release their own work as CC). If nobody in that time is willing to put in the effort and do the work required to salvage what can be salvaged, then perhaps the work is not worth salvaging.

So I say it's time to close this, delete the index and pages, notify Commons, and move on. And absent some actual progress, plausible arguments, or well-founded objections, in some reasonable timeframe (and I mean measured in days not years, just to be clear), that is what I will do. Please chime in on this (whatever your position: even "Dunno" and "Don't care" would be appreciated if that is where you're at)! --Xover (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The ideal course of action is for a user to censor the offending images from the source scan so that we can transclude it using {{image removed}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Just for the record, I'll second that: redacting just the problematic images and keeping the rest would be the ideal resolution if someone was willing to take that on. And while it would be quite a lot of work, ShakespeareFan00 has made a great roadmap of which images need to be redacted, which should make the job much more manageable. --Xover (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Xover (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

All works under Category:PD-IndonesianGovEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived :
All infringing works deleted; EdictGovInd template deleted and works recategorized; PD-IndGov template updated for 2014 law. --Xover (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The license {{PD-IndonesianGov}} (not to be confused with {{PD-EdictGovIndonesian}}) is explicitly nonderivative and therefore unacceptable here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

How many of these works have the correct license? Are there any of the works that ought to have a different license? Otherwise, I agree that we cannot / should not host works under the stated tag. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Some of them are listed with multiple license tags and can be kept. Some of them I'm not sure. Maybe we should discuss each individually. I'd delete the license tag though, or at least make a note on it that works cannot be hosted under the license unless they are PD in the US for some other reason. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Relevant to this discussion, I think our copy of Copyright Act of Republic of Indonesia (the basis for the distinction drawn above between {{PD-IndonesianGov}} and {{PD-EdictGovIndonesian}}) may be out of date. Copyright Act of Republic of Indonesia bills itself as a 2002 act as amended in 2014, but the 2014 revision legislation (available from WIPO, with a not-so-great machine translation into English) appears to be more in the nature of a replacement than an amendment. The rule against copyrightability of governmental works is now stated in Article 42 in terms that do not entirely overlap with Article 13 of the 2002 act; there is a new provision in Article 41 concerning limits on copyrightability of certain works; and there is a series of exceptions under new Articles 43–49, some of which may be pertinent for our purposes.

All of which is just by way of saying that perhaps this discussion needs to be tabled until we as a community develop a fuller sense of what Indonesian copyright law actually requires (and permits). Tarmstro99 23:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@RaymondSutanto, @John Vandenberg: Are you able to advise us on this matter? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, @Tarmstro99: is right: the template is out of date. The newest Copyright Act that we use is the 2014 edition (you can see it on Indonesian Wikisource: id:Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 28 Tahun 2014). The Copyright Act says that all of Acts made by government doesn't have any copyright, on Article 42 (Tidak ada Hak Cipta atas hasil karya berupa: ... b. peraturan perundang-undangan). The 2014 edition is a replacement for the 2002 edition. RaymondSutanto (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@RaymondSutanto: is the legislation retroactive, does it affect government works published before 2014?—Also, this discussion does not cover Acts of government (which are hostable under {{PD-EdictGov}}, but rather works created by the Indonesian government that are not legislative. Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is retroactive. Works that are not legislative are also counted (included) on Article 42, for example Government Regulation (Peraturan Pemerintah) and Presidential Regulation (Peraturan Presiden) that are not a legislative law. RaymondSutanto (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There's a (mediocre) translation of the 2014 law here. The changes that affect us aren't substantial. Government works that aren't listed in section 42 are still licensed in a non-compatible fashion (no derivatives except for certain purposes). The works listed in section 42 are the same as section 12 of the 2002 law, except that "scripture or religious symbols" are now exempt from copyright, and "decisions of arbitration boards or of other similar agencies" are no longer exempt from copyright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (All works under Category:PD-IndonesianGov)

Ok, I've put some effort into researching this. The texts in that category break down as follows:

Analysis of all works in Category:PD-IndonesianGov

Based on this, the following works are non-compliant with policy and should be deleted:

In addition, {{PD-IndonesianGov}} describes what are in effect -NC and -ND exceptions to infringing acts from Article 43 (e.g. filesharing is ok if it is not for profit), but does not exempt works from copyright (it's effectively an extended fair use clause). All work remaining in the category should be relicensed under the text of {{PD-EdictGovIndonesian}}, but the latter template should be renamed to the former for clarity (PD-*Gov suggests it's PD as a work of the named government, like PD-USGov, but PD-Edict*Gov suggests a work that's PD as a work of a foreign government, like PD-EdictGov in the US).

Based on this I have also opened a discussion on Commons to clarify whether their apparent acceptance of Article 43 works is deliberate or an error. --Xover (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Xover (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:The Murder on the Links.pdfEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived :
Deleted old files, kept new PD upload. --Xover (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The book The Murder on the Links is now fair game. However, this work has a modern cover and modern notes that need to be removed. There's also no need to transcribe it; the PDF was produced from an ePub and the raw text could be pulled directly from the file. In general, it's better if we use US works published before 1989 and better 1978, because then the lack of a more modern copyright notice would put any new material or edits into the public domain. If not, usually we're going to have to drop the cover and any new notes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree that this copy is outside of our bounds because of the 2011 copyright notice to HarperCollins—who didn't exist as a company until 1990. Need to find a scanned first edition to proofread. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Also Index:The Murder on the Links.pdf which someone apparently started to transcribe in good faith (sigh) :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
This edition of the book dates to 1984. The copyright notice states that it "contains the complete text of the original hardcover edition," just set in a new typeface. It's also freely available in Google Books, which lists the copyright date as 1923. I don't know if it'd be useful to you folks, but wanted to point it out. 00:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that actually works. Anything newer would have no copyright because there's no proper copyright notice on the post-1923 material. I've uploaded it as File:Agatha Christie-The Murder on the Links.pdf.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The cover design, however, may be under copyright. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
It was published in the US without proper copyright notice, so it should be PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a clear copyright notice on the back of the title page, stating "All rights reserved", and credit for the cover design. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The copyright notice says "Copyright 1923 by Dodd, Mead and Company. Copyright renewed 1950, Agatha Christie Mallowan." If it applies to the cover, then it expired in 2019. If it doesn't apply to the cover, then it had no proper copyright notice. The US Copyright Office on the Jaws cover emphasizes the importance of having the correct name, and neither the name of the publisher or cover designer is mentioned in the notice. The Copyright Compendium III says "note: Using an antedated notice in an anonymous work, pseudonymous work, or work made for hire may affect the term of the copyright if the work was first published in the United States between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989. In such cases, the term is computed from the year of publication that appears in the notice, rather than from the actual year of first publication." If this is not a work made for hire, it seems highly unlikely (as per the Jaws decision) that the copyright notice includes the cover.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes, @Beeswaxcandle, @ShakespeareFan00, @EncycloPetey: Do I understand correctly from the above that File:The Murder on the Links.pdf and Index:The Murder on the Links.pdf should be deleted as copyvio, but File:Agatha Christie-The Murder on the Links.pdf should be kept as properly out of copyright (including covers etc.)? --Xover (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

That fileFile:Agatha Christie-The Murder on the Links.pdf may also have an issue with the cover, unless there evidence otherwise, not mentioned in this disscussion yet. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Where's the copyright notice? American works published before 1989 needed proper copyright notice, and this doesn't have one covering the cover. I said that above.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I still think it would be better to find a first edition, but noted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
The cover appears when viewing the file initially, but once you open the file, it is not displayed. There appears to be damage to this PDF, but I do not know if more pages than just the cover are affected. We also do not know whether a separate application for copyright for the cover (by Virginia M. Smith) was granted. All we know is that the publisher credited the designer. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
When I open the file, both in Google Chrome and Adobe Acrobat Reader, the cover is displayed. I don't know which program you're using. If that's the only problem, it can be converted to DjVu.
The cover needs a proper copyright notice; it lacks one. If you want to see if there's a separate application filed with the copyright office, go to the Copyright Office Records Catalog and check; I searched for both Murder on the Links and Smith Virginia, and in neither case did something appropriate come up.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I am using Firefox, and am viewing the file in my web browser from its location on Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I've uploaded a DjVu translation at File:Agatha Christie-The Murder on the Links.djvu.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay? I don't want to close this myself, but I would like to know if this copy will work or if we need to search for another copy. I've got a supposed facsimile edition, but it's not explicit about its copyright status either, and my pile of works to scan is deep enough that I'd like to avoid adding something else to it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed resolution (The Murder on the Links)

Ping previous participants in this discussion: @Prosfilaes, @Beeswaxcandle, @ShakespeareFan00, @EncycloPetey:

The following pages/files are involved in this discussion:

I'm going to go ahead and assume that Prosfilaes' latest DjVu is acceptable to all. Which means I intend to close this discussion by deleting the first bullet and the pages in the third as copyvio; the index in the second as redundant when the file and pages are deleted; and the fourth as redundant/duplicate of the fifth. In other words, to only keep the final DjVu.

If anybody has objections or corrections or needs more time to consider, please respond here ASAP. If you agree with this course of action, please also say so here ASAP. I can't see that we really have any issues outstanding here so I'd like to close it out and clear the backlog. --Xover (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  SupportBeleg Tâl (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  Support --Prosfilaes (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Xover (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

"Courtesy of" images in Advanced Automation for Space MissionsEdit

There are a bunch of images embedded in Advanced Automation for Space Missions that are captioned "Courtesy of Czechoslovakia Ceramics, Inc., Prague." e.g. Image:Aasm-fig4-3.jpg, Image:Aasm-fig4-5.jpg, Image:Aasm-fig4-6.jpg. They have been uploaded here under {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. They were recently transferred to Commons and marked for deletion here, but Commons immediately deleted them, since an image included in a NASA document "courtesy of" the copyright holder, does not thereby become PD. What do we need to do with the local images? Hesperian 01:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I imagine these are "fair use", and we should censor them in the scan and replace them with {{image removed}} in the trancribed text. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Government use of copyrighted material does not affect that copyright. Most such are used under some form of fair use for the US Government that wouldn't even apply to us, much less our reusers; and in this case the "Courtesy of …" actually suggests a license ("permission") to use that must be assumed to be in that specific context and not apply to us or our reusers. In other words, we need to delete any extracted image files as copyvios and treat the PDF and transcription as Beleg Tâl has indicated. --Xover (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the images from Advanced Automation for Space Missions, deleted the three that were hosted here, and nominated the last one (Fig. 4-4) for deletion on Commons.

However, I also managed to track down the original NASA publication and have uploaded a DjVu with text layer, but with the offending images (pp.104–105) redacted, and set up a basic index for it at: Index:Advanced Automation for Space Missions.djvu. Anybody up for trying Match&Split on that to get the stuff in Advanced Automation for Space Missions scan backed? Hesperian? Beleg Tâl? Or, I seem to recall, Billinghurst has done such tasks in the past? It's a bit beyond what I feel comfortable trying on my own in any case, so any takers would be very welcome! --Xover (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be necessary to do match and split on each subpage separately, which is rather time consuming. It might be a few weeks or more before I can get around to it, but if it's not done when I find myself with time to handle it, I'll do it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, match and split is really easy (besides being time consuming) so don't be afraid to give it a shot :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I have begun the match and split, but it appears that the text layer does not match the scan images in the later pages of the book. @Xover: are you able to fix this? If so I will continue with match and split when it is resolved. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: My apologies, I should have caught this. The problem is caused by a sequence of software limitations and cascading failures:
  • Tesseract (OCR engine) falls down on pages where text is rotated 90°, typically tables and illustrations, and returns empty data.
  • djvused from DjVuLibre will happily set the hidden text to something that is invalid and djvutxt can't extract.
  • djvutxt outputs an error message rather than an empty hidden text layer for these pages.
  • MediaWiki-DjVu uses djvutxt to dump the hidden text from the whole .djvu file and relies on getting valid structured data from it, so it doesn't detect the pages that just give an error message, and happily proceeds to assign every subsequent text layer to page n-m, where m increases by one for every preceding page with an invalid text layer.
In this particular case there were 5 such pages spread over most of the work, starting at page 95, meaning every page after that point was offset by 1–5 pages. It's a really annoying problem because in the .djvu file the hidden text looks fine: the only place you can actually see it is in the Page: namespace here.
In any case, I've tweaked the .djvu to correct for this and re-uploaded it, so the pages should align properly now.
Thanks for taking on this. H:MS contains loads of scary warnings about how fiddly the process is so I didn't quite feel comfortable tackling it just yet. --Xover (talk) 10:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
PS. This is task T219376. --Xover (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

Index:Criminal Code of Canada.pdfEdit

Referral, as this isn't under a straight PD license as claimed at commons, but as Canadian law (and a consolidated version) it is felt this would be covered under the Reproduction of Federal Law Order (which ideally should have a suitable license tag? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

We have {{Legislation-CAGov}} which would be a more appropriate license for this ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
IDK what that tag on Commons is but it's clearly wrong. I don't know how they handle crown copyright over there. {{Legislation-CAGov}} is the best template here on WS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In the US this is clearly PD-EdictGov. However, in Canada this is in Crown Copyright with an ad hoc permission to use license that imposes incompatible limitations (-ND, essentially). The Reproduction of Federal Law Order only permits literal copies and requires disclaimers that it is not the government's official copy. In other words, we can host it here; but we shouldn't rely on a copy at Commons because it is incompatible with their policy (PD in source country). As soon as someone (hint, hint) uploads a local copy here it should be proposed for deletion at Commons. --Xover (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
This version was current to 2017. What if the law changes as evolving work?--Jusjih (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
If you are suggesting that consolidated editions of Canadian law are out of scope... I kind of agree with you, but since Justice Canada publishes the consolidated editions online every time it gets updated, but doesn't publish the originals separately from the amendments, we've mostly been treating these as separate editions rather than as an evolving work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Letter to Donald Trump from President NixonEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived :
nomination by contributor, speedied

It seems likely at this point that the copyright is still owned by the Nixon Foundation; see the discussion at Talk:Letter to Donald Trump from President Nixon. Somewhat of a shame, but since the text of the letter, the original of which now hangs in the Oval Office, is so short, it's probably fair game to host the crux of it over at Wikiquote. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

A fraternal greeting from the free Macedonian state - 1944 and other worksEdit

Contributions by GStojanov (talkcontribs) from a work published in 1985. The issues that I need to see resolved are

  1. The original works are from the 1940s, and the original authors are not dead by 70 years. Examples.
  2. The translator in the 1985 work has no indication that these works are out of copyright for the translator.

We need to know the copyright status of the work, and did it have any copyright notice? Full name of the work, where it was published, was it co-published in the States, and if yes, was it registered in the years following publication. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The full name of the book is: "Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State", There are two publishers: Kultura and Makedonska Kniga. The main editor is: Hristo Andonov-Poljanski. It is published in Skopje, Macedonia (still in Yugoslavia back then) in 1985. It was not co-published in the States. I'm not sure if it was registered? How would I check that? The ISBN for the book is: CIP- NUB "Kliment Ohridski", Skopje 949.717.02/.07(093.2). The book does not have any copyright notices associated with it. GStojanov (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
As I am reading this page, it seems that most, if not all, of these documents fall under: {{PD-EdictGov}} GStojanov (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Copyright of works that were not published in the USA does not require registration, so in general a work published in Macedonia/Yugoslavia in the 1940s will be automatically copyrighted in the USA. Even if {{PD-EdictGov}} covers the original documents, it will not cover the English translation unless the English translation is officially issued by the Macedonian government. It will also not cover any editorial content, including the choice and arrangement of works included in the collection. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I checked in [2] and I didn't find the book. So it isn't registered in US. According to: [3] the book is in public domain since it is published between: 1 January 1978 - 1 March 1989 and "Published without copyright notice, and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996". So I think that the book is in public domain. GStojanov (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, but to be "public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996" it would be necessary for all authors, including the translator and editor, to have died before 1926, which we know is not the case; or, for the work to be an official translation issued by the government and therefore ineligible for copyright in Macedonia. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Both publishers: Kultura and Makedonska kniga were government run and government owned. The translator was contracted by them to do the translation. Both the Macedonian and the English edition of the book were published by these two government run publishers. GStojanov (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, excellent! In that case, it seems very likely that this work is in the public domain. Do you have a scan of the entire publication that you can upload? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a scan. I have the actual books. But that is a good idea, I will make a scan and upload it. GStojanov (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Schuman DeclarationEdit

A 1950 statement by a French politician, in French, and here from an unknown translator. The listed site does not show the respective documents in their original, though the has the English translation, though no evidence that it is not in copyright. I have my doubts that both the original and the translation would be out of copyright, though no nothing of either. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  •   Delete The original speech might be PD-FrenchGov in France, since Schuman was Foreign Minister at the time, and as PD in its home country on the URAA date would not be affected by the URAA. It would be borderline for PD-EdictGov in the US, but I'd at least be willing to entertain arguments to that effect. The translation, however, if the given source is accurate, is copyright by the EU, which does not have a PD-USGov-style general exemption from copyright that I am aware of. As a third party translation it is exceedingly unlikely that the translation would be covered under PD-EdictGov in the US even if the original was determined to covered. --Xover (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Ahdname of MilodražEdit

The only source I can find for this translation is this poster, and I see no indication that it is out of copyright or in the public domain. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  •   Delete The page gives this web page as a source, which links to/is a subpage of [4], attributed to Darko Zubrinic of Zagreb in 1995, whose profile on that same website is here, and who was alive as recently as 2012. There is no indication that this person has released the translation under a suitable free license. If the translation is misattributed, then there is no evidence it is freely licensed, and there is no good source available. BethNaught (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)