Wikisource:Copyright discussions

Copyright discussions
This page hosts discussions on works that may violate Wikisource's copyright policy. All arguments should be based entirely on U.S. copyright law. You may join any current discussion or start a new one.

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

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

If you are at least somewhat familiar with U. S. copyright regulations, Stanford Copyright Renewal Database as well as University of Pennsylvania's information about the Catalog of Copyright Entries may be helpful in determining the copyright status of the work. A search through 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'

Philosophical Writings: Translators modern unpublished translation, or possible gifted translationEdit

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

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

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

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

My opinion is still   Delete: assume copyvio over gifted translation without evidence to the contrary —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[]
I agree and thus also   Delete. But I take billinghurst's above proposal of "move to Translation:" as an implicit {{vk}}. Since the issue is not clearly settleable on the facts, I think we need wider input to determine our course of action. --Xover (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[]
  •   Keep 2010! They met our requirements at the time, and we didn't have a translation: ns back then. There is suitable evidence that the author did edit, and with this translation left their name on the work appropriately to our style. The text is not findable on the web, so it is unlikely to be a copy and paste job. If anyone had done that in the Translation ns: today, then no one would be batting an eyelid about keep it unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)‎.[]
  •   Keep per billinghurst --Zyephyrus (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[]
  •   Keep this retroactive deleting of deceased people's work, because they did not get in their time machine and anticipate the subsequent copyright compliance, is doing quality improvement wrong. it is behaving just like betacommand. is there any evidence of an online source. copy pasted? if not, then keep, risk low. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 22:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Keep on the condition that the translation is scan-backed to the original in the Translation namespace. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
To further elaborate, through all evidence available to us at this time, this Larrieu translator seems to have solely published their own translation here on Wikisource in 2010. By doing this, he effectively waived his copyrights to the translation to the CC BY-SA 3.0 License (I checked and this is indeed the default license that was used by Wikisource at the end of 2010 just like to-day). As there is currently no available evidence that this was copied from somewhere else, or that he published it elsewhere beforehand or afterward and claimed different copyright terms for it, it's as safe to assume that this is freely licensed as it is to assume any random sample of Wikipedia articles is. I think that unless we find something to indicate otherwise, we should keep it. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@PseudoSkull: The problem with that reasoning, and the reason we generally require VRT (neé OTRS) verification, is that we cannot know that they actually understood that that was what they were doing, or what the consequences would be. For example, the contributor appears to have been a professional translator, meaning their livelihood depended on the ability to charge money for their translations. Since digital goods (like a translated text) have no natural scarcity (unlike a physical good, I mean), a license that permits commercial reuse and derivative works destroys the value, to the translator, of the translation. Experience shows, again and again, that people who initially seem inclined to contribute something really mean to apply -ND and -NC restrictions (or, not infrequently, "used by permission, only on Wikipedia") once the details are explained to them.
Normal people (and I don't count us who hang out at WS:CV or c:COM:VPC among those) have no conception of how copyright works, much less "copyleft" licenses. Nobody but nobody reads, or even notices, clickthrough licenses like the one below the edit box. It works as legal cover if we really get sued, but we generally want contributions to be made fully informed of the consequences ("Gotcha, no backsies!" is not a sustainable strategy). For comments on a talk page the assumption is sufficient; but a full translation is more akin to a photo or other media file. And there is a reason Commons, for example, doesn't accept things like that without OTRS verification.
However, that all being said, this is definitely a matter of personal standards of evidence and tolerance for uncertainty. I am not suggesting that it is in any way wrong or unreasonable to accept the evidence available as sufficient in this particular case. I'm just pointing out the flip side. Xover (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Xover: "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." This is the current wording of the text below the edit summary section of the edit window. Assuming it was the same or similar in 2010, I assume this would apply. In other words, while it may be considered courteous to go through the OTRS or whatever system Wikimedia Commons might normally do, it's not (apparently) legally required. By saving edits the translator, professional or not, agreed. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2021 (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)[]

Un Canadien errant (Gibbon)Edit

English translation by John Murray Gibbon (1875–1952) first published in England in 1927. pma. 70 means its UK copyright runs until 2022, which means it was in copyright in the UK on the URAA date and its US copyright term expires at the end of 1927 + 95 = 2022. Even if one presumed a Canadian copyright term (Gibbon was "Scottish-Canadian") of pma. 50 it would have been in copyright on the URAA date and have its US copyright restored. Xover (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[]

  • An OCLC/WorldCat record indicated a simultaneous publication in the U.S., which would make it in the public domain, assuming a lack of renewal and/or notice. I don’t think that there would be any differences between the editions to make a London song version versus a New York song version. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[]
    @TE(æ)A,ea.: WorldCat suggests it was possibly published the same year, but "simultaneous publication" for Copyright purposes must happen within 30 days. Can you find any evidence that was actually the case?
    PS. I never take WorldCat alone as evidence of anything at all: it is a raw dump of every library catalog (which, on average, are utter crap) with zero quality control. Xover (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[]
    The U.S. (New York) publication certainly exists, but CCE seems unavailing as to a more specific date of publication. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[]

┌─────────┘

Ok, digging into this I find…

On 2 February (a Wednesday) The Gazette in Montreal mentions the Canadian edition as being "due to appear next week". On 4 February (a Friday) the Calgary Herald describes it as "has just been published", and on 5 February (a Saturday) the Gazette reviews it. I'd say we can split the difference and say Canadian publication was on Monday, 7 February 1927 and the papers just slightly jumped the gun based on a review copy.

States-side I find the Forth-Worth Star-Telegram mentions the work on 6 March, but doesn't make clear which edition they are referring to nor clearly indicate publication date. On 10 March the Brewton Standard (Alabama) calls it "the book just published by Mr. Gibbon through Dutton & Co., New York". Based on this the US edition must have been already published before 10 March, and that makes the 6 March mention in Texas almost certain to be referring to the US edition.

That means the evidence puts the delta at 30 days give or take a few, and the actual outcome depends on how one weights the variables. If you think the Canadian reviews means it was already published the gap widens; but if you think Texas and Alabama reviews lag behind a New York publication the gap narrows.

Our best directly supported dates are 7 February in Canada and 6 March in the US, which just squeaks through the "within 30 days" limit.

Iff it falls within 30 days it is a US work for copyright purposes, and subject to formal requirements of visible copyright notice and renewal in the 28th year. I can't see the scans so I can't tell whether they have a notice, but I can find no sign of any registration or renewal so they would, in that case, be {{PD-US-no-renewal}}.

This all hinges on (subjective) assessment of the variables, so I would very much like to hear the community's take on this in either direction. --Xover (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]

So we have a UK work that snuck into US copyright protection through the 'bilateral relations' hole... https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf footnote 8. It's not Berne, so the rules are actually different... under the 1909 Act, after a quick review, they had to deposit a single copy of the foreign edition within 30 days for 'ad interim' protection, and then had another 30 days to produce an "authorized edition" in the US... presumably cut and bound in New York to meet the manufacturing requirement. That would give them a 28 year term, and given the presence of a single copy at the LoC it seems likely they did so. Doesn't sound good. Jarnsax (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I paged through a few hundred of the VCC scans, around his name. Found a number of cards for him, for both 'first US publications' and 'ad interim', all for different titles in the same time period, but none for this work. I did also notice he was Canadian (lived in Windsor Station, Quebec) but the US also had bilateral relations with them (starting in 1924). This is looking to me like a lot like a URAA case... it might have actually not net the manufacturing requirement. Jarnsax (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Obviously, not finding this was bugging me. The work is in Mansell here... looks like a UK publication the NYPL acquired on June 23 1927, then one by Dutton in New York listed as "Printed in Great Britain" at some point in 1927, and then the 1929 UK reprint. Jarnsax (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Comment Checking now I find I've failed to tag the work itself with {{copyvio}} so interested contributors have not been able to discover that it is being discussed here (in particular, Beleg Tâl may wish to comment). For that reason I am inclined to keep this discussion open for at least an additional week from today. --Xover (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[]
    • This is a lot to parse through. I'm inclined to say, if in doubt,   Delete. We have other translations. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Kerry vs. PickensEdit

These are by a sitting Senator, but the whole swiftboat thing with Pickens and the SBVT are hardly obvious parts of his official duties. Kerry was at this time a candidate for the Democratic nomination (he hadn't yet dropped out and endorsed Obama), and the SBVT attacks targeted Kerry personally, so these are pretty obviously him acting as a candidate and not a Senator.

On the other hand, we've traditionally given waaaay wide latitude to what we consider to fall within the scope of a Senator's duties (way too much, and I think we should tighten that up going forward).

In this specific case I'd be comfortable with deleting under the former rationale, or tagging them as {{PD-USGov}} under the latter, but I'd like to hear where the community sits on this. Xover (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[]

  Delete I'd definitely agree that these letters were not within (or even remotely discussing) his official duties... they are completely irrelevant to, and don't even discuss the topic of, any legislation that was under consideration at the time. The SBVT thing was purely political theatre, on both sides. Given that I see no way in which these letters would be any different if Kerry had been a candidate who was not in office at the time, it seems obvious that it's not exempt. Jarnsax (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]
The whole SBVT thing was asking about his service in Vietnam which was part of his official duties as a Navy Officer. If it were written at the time as an officer it would count no? If he were an admiral coming up for senate confirmation would we reach the same conclusion it wasn't part of his official duties? MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[]
@MarkLSteadman: The exemption is specifically for "works of the United States Government...prepared by an officer or employee...as part of his official duties." This implies a 'work for hire' (it's a corporate author), so we can also pull in "a work prepared as an employee as part of his employment."
  • Kerry was no longer a serving officer at the time, and thus had no "official duty" to comment about his previous service. While he was still serving, the work would still have to be explicitly "part of his official duties," so something that he was actually obligated to prepare.
  • An officer seeking confirmation from, or testifying before, Congress, would do so only under direction from the Commander in Chief, so it's part of their duty. As the law currently stands (getting into untested ground a bit, here, but as it seems to stand in the US) an Officer of the United States (and thus part of the Executive Branch) they cannot be compelled by the Legislative to testify when it relates to their official duties, as when carrying out those duties they are using "a portion of the Sovereign Power of the United States" delegated to them by the President and are thus eligible for qualified immunity from contempt of Congress for refusal to testify.
  • There is no exemption under statute law for works of Members of Congress.. they are neither officers nor employees of the United States Government (specifically prohibited from being so by the Ineligibility Clause of the US Constitution)
  • The relevant exemption for Congress is instead from the common law, is for "edicts of government, broadly construed" and dates back to an 1830s court case, but was addressed quite recently by the Supreme Court

    For purposes of the Copyright Act, judges cannot be the “author[s]” of “whatever work they perform in their capacity” as lawmakers. Because legislators, like judges, have the authority to make law, it follows that they, too, cannot be “authors.” And, as with judges, the doctrine applies to whatever work legislators perform in their capacity as legislators, including explanatory and procedural materials they create in the discharge of their legislative duties.

    —Georgia et al. v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (2020)

  • The definition of "law" in this case in extremely broad (this is a principle of the common, not statute law).... "non-statute" materials prepared by Members in the course of drafting legislation, that could be used by judges to construct the meaning and sense of Congress behind the words actually enacted, are "law" in the sense intended, as is the 'administrative law' in the Code of Federal Regulations. The concept is that "actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" - essentially that you have to be able to know what the law is to commit a crime. Jarnsax (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks. My main question was thinking through this in a more rigorous way given that it all seemed a bit wishy-washy. My inclination was that it didn't apply and I was pushing to nail down why it doesn't apply. For example, that {{PD-US-Gov}} is not for legislators. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah, I kinda took it as a request to try to really explain the reasoning behind it... it's why the Constitution starts "We the People" though we know what specific people actually wrote it: because our representatives, when acting as the legislative, are essentially us, we (as a people) are the collective authors of the works it creates, that we give our implicit consent to when electing congresscritters. WE are the swamp, lol. Jarnsax (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Jarnsax: “There is no exemption under statute law for works of Members of Congress”—actually, that’s not true. “Copyright protection under the Copyright Act is not available for ‘any work of the United States Government.’ … This includes works created by the President; Congress; the federal judiciary; federal departments, agencies, boards, bureaus, or commissions; or any other officer or employee of the U.S. federal government while acting within the course of his or her official duties.” (From the Compendium.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@TE(æ)A,ea. You're arguing with the Supreme Court (see quote above, or look up the case). What you are missing is that Congressmen are not Officers (or employees) of the Unites States Government. First sentence of w:Officer of the United States... "a functionary of the executive or judicial branches of the federal government of the United States..." ...as I mentioned above, the Ineligibility Clause... "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." They are not "employees" because they are not hired or fired, it's an elective office not a 'job'. The reasoning goes way off into too much depth for here, but 'law' is ineligible for copyright due to a lack of authorship as defined by the Copyright Act. In the specific case, the Georgia Legislature is denied copyright in 'non binding annotations' that were published along with the actual statute. Jarnsax (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Jarnsax: This work was published after Public.Resource.Org was decided; it references that case in the paragraph I quoted. Here is the full quote:

“[T]he bar on copyright protection for federal works … applies to works created by all federal ‘officer[s] or employee[s],’ without regard for the nature of their position or scope of their authority.” Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1498, 1509–10 (2020). This includes works created by the President; Congress; the federal judiciary; federal departments, agencies, boards, bureaus, or commissions; or any other officer or employee of the U.S. federal government while acting within the course of his or her official duties. It also includes works prepared by an officer or employee of the government of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the organized territories under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

  • You can read the rest here (p. 36, § 313.6(C)(1)). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@TE(æ)A,ea. Now read the very next section of the Compendium regarding government edicts, 313.6(C)(2). It tells you the same thing I just did. Jarnsax (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
To explain a bit more, when it mentions "Congress" in (C)(1) it is referring to Officers and employees of the legislative branch (i.e. Congress) like the w:Architect of the Capitol, who are not Members of COngress and have no legislative authority. Jarnsax (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Since this is probably going to go here anyhow, actual "laws" (passed by both houses, and signed by the president) are edicts of Government, as are "rules" (i.e. administrative law) written by agencies with rulemaking authority delegated by statute (like the EPA). That they are not copyrightable is a "principle", it's not written in the statutes, it's common law (England does copyright laws, but they actually passed a law post-revolution to make it that way). Congress can also (and does) create "works of the United States Government" when they do things like pass a simple resolution in the House to express condolences after a former member dies, and those are not copyrightable under (C)(1), but they are also not legislation. Jarnsax (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jarnsax: This discussion is interesting, and can have far-reaching consequences for how we treat works by congressmen on the project. I have always been unclear on what exactly the copyright situation for these are.
The executive branch are fairly clear as {{PD-USGov}}, and the judiciary are usually fairly clear as {{PD-EdictGov}}. And Congress as such is normally also producing works that fall under EdictGov, especially after PRO.
But we get a lot of works by individual congressmen that can be anything from speeches on the floor, to press releases, speeches to the electorate, town halls and Q&A sessions with constituents. We have historically given wide latitude to keeping these under the theory that PD-USGov was in effect, and a congressman's "official duties" includes various kinds of schmoozing with constituents. But if there is no PD-USGov exemption for congressmen, that means only PD-EdictGov controls the issue; and EdictGov (even after PRO) will only apply in those narrow circumstances where whatever work somehow bears on a law or other edict of the government. That would eliminate a wide swathe of texts that we currently host.
In other words, this is an issue I believe it is worthwhile spending some time and effort to get right. Xover (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Xover Yeah, "employees" is obvious, and it's fairly easy to define an "Officer of the United States"... nominated by President, confirmed by Senate, has a physical paper commission, swears an oath to the Constitution.
What's kind of odd is the case to watch right now [5] isn't actually a copyright case, but probably will go towards the point here... if a congressman speaking at Trump's Jan 6th rally was 'acting in the scope of his duties' by addressing the public at a political event. There have been other, similar cases (like Murtha), but I think they are generally more about the Westfall Act (tort law) which has it's own definition of 'employee' that is much broader.
All the copyright compendium really says about "edicts of government" is citing cases where courts have agreed that since the Copyright Act doesn't explicitly create a copyright in them (doesn't mention them at all) then there isn't one (and people have been calling BS on Georgia for years). We're just left with that it should be 'broadly construed' in the public interest. Jarnsax (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
So, after some more digging around, I tracked down the 11th Circuit's decision in Georgia v. PRO here. [6] What's interesting about it is they get to the same place starting from first principles, and essentially create a three part test:

Because our ultimate inquiry is whether a work is authored by the People, meaning whether it represents an articulation of the sovereign will, our analysis is guided by a consideration of those characteristics that are the hallmarks of law. In particular, we rely on the identity of the public officials who created the work, the authoritativeness of the work, and the process by which the work was created. These are critical markers. Where all three point in the direction that a work was made in the exercise of sovereign power -- which is to say where the official who created the work is entrusted with delegated sovereign authority, where the work carries authoritative weight, and where the work was created through the procedural channels in which sovereign power ordinarily flows -- it follows that the work would be attributable to the constructive authorship of the People, and therefore uncopyrightable.

This test (which the SC did not adopt, so it's only precedent in the 11th Cir.) excludes a lot of Congress-proximate stuff. Jarnsax (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Jarnsax: This is a test for whether a work is an edict of government, not if a work is a work of the U.S. government made by Congress (or a member thereof). “It tells you the same thing I just did”—it mentions the edict-of-government exception, yes; but it also, separately, mentions that the works of “[the] President [and] Congress” are “‘work[s] of the United States Government,’” which seems to imply there are non-EdictGov works by the President and Congress which are still USGov. In addition, I would say that all resolutions passed by Congress are edicts of government, and fall under that exception (rather than the more general government-work exception). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@TE(æ)A,ea. Wrote a bunch, and wiped it, because I think I know the difficulty here. You are looking at and referring to the Copyright Compendium, which is useful, but does not have the force of law.
From 17 USC §101, the actual statute, "A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." That is the sum total of the definition. Actual elected officials are neither Officers of the US nor employees (employee is not defined, so law dictionary meaning. Who is their 'boss' that directs them how to do their job? Not employees.) The Compendium has to be read in context of what the law itself says, it is explanatory of USCO practice, but not 'proscriptive'... in context, they are trying to make clear that they are talking about any officer or employee of any part of the federal government whatsoever, but the restriction "officer or employee" cannot be expanded upon by anything but a revision of 17 USC by Congress. Officers of the United States are created through the w:Appointments Clause, and Members of Congress are prohibited from being an Officer by the w:Ineligibility Clause. Jarnsax (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Jarnsax: While engaging in this discussion, I have come to agree with the concerns raised in your position. However, we are neither judges nor legislators, and so (in my opinion) for Wikisource purposes the Compendium is dispositive, regardless of any such potentially serious errors. Unless the authors and editors of the Compendium decide to rewrite it to reflect this concern, or some new law or court case declares it so, we must follow the “leading law” (as much as the Compendium is that) in this case. The introduction to the Compendium gloats about how it has been cited in court cases as “highly persuasive,” and we cannot say that a judge will absolutely disagree with the Compendium’s finding, so, until such a change happens, I say we should follow the Compendium. (Also, because it supports my opinion.) As for your comment evincing a different interpretation of the Compendium, I disagree; I believe the catch-all clause at the end (“any other officer or employee of the U.S. federal government”) would cover officers and employees of Congress whether or no the sentence mentioned “Congress” separately; and I don’t think that the reference to “Congress” was meant to refer to “the officers and employees of Senators and Congressmen but not the representatives themselves”—a distinction they could have made. Regarding the 11th Circuit’s opinion, while it is not a nationwide standard, absent a Supreme Court ruling, I see no reason why Wikisource should not (in a general manner) adopt the finding as interpretive policy for EdictGov, as being more specific than the Supreme Court’s ruling. (By the way, as a separate matter, this discussion should probably be moved to a more general forum; but that can happen later.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@TE(æ)A,ea. Yeah, I was happy to find the 11th Circuit ruling, also they do a really good job explaining why edicts are a matter of 'authorship', even though that admittedly sounds completely nonsensical on the surface. Regarding the Compendium, though, it does also state (in the intro) that it doesn't override any statute and isn't even binding on the Registrar... it just has the 'force of argument', and doesn't set precedent. We may disagree, but I'm pretty sure applying PD-USGov to anything not authored by an 'officer or employee' would be doomed to fail (though in reality they are probably written by staffers and USGov as works for hire anyhow). I think it's the boundaries of deviant congresscritter behavior (Murtha, anyone?) and what is 'campaigning' vs 'legislative' that's more likely to be an issue. Jarnsax (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]

(as a quick interjection, cases like Murtha - under the Federal Tort Claims Act - are irrelevant to us, because the FCTA has it's own, extremely broad, definition of 'employee'. The criminal case about Jan 6th I linked above is going to hang on if it was part of the MoC's 'official duties', not his 'employee-ness') Jarnsax (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]

@TE(æ)A,ea. It might be helpful to look at the two relevant templates over on Commons, c:Template:PD-USGov-Congress and c:Template:PD-USGov-POTUS. Both (correctly) attribute the works they apply to as those of 'employees'... of Congress on the one hand, and the 'Executive Office of the President' on the other. Works of the United States Government created by employees of "Congress" are works for hire, and per 17 USC § 201 (b) "the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title"... so, the 'author' of works created by employees of Congress is Congress "itself" (as a corporate body) for purposes of copyright. The same logic applies in the other case.. they are employees of the President, so their 'works for hire' are works of the "President" (as an 'office', a 'corporation sole', not personal property ofc). Parsing 313.6(C)(1), they actually say "works created by the President; Congress; the federal judiciary; federal departments, agencies, boards, bureaus, or commissions; or any other officer or employee of the U.S. federal government". All of the items listed before the semicolon are 'corporate bodies' (for instance, it does not say 'judges', but 'the federal judiciary'...stuff like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). Jarnsax (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @TE(æ)A,ea.: By my count you're outnumbered 3:1 on this one; but I don't like closing these on mere majority vote, and especially not for a delete outcome. Would you be very strongly opposed to closing this as delete now and then let the issue of the possible primacy of the Compendium shake out over time in other copyright discussions? Testing the reasoning against different facts and situation often leads to better conclusions and better elucidates an issue. --Xover (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]
    • You are mistaken; I have come here to discuss copyright, not to argue for deletion or not. I have not, until after this comment, looked at the actual text in dispute here. I would think that the materials here relate more to then-Senator candidate-for-President Pickens, and thus not be relevant to the general dispute regarding what constitutes the work of a Senator. (Supposing these to be deleted, the Wikipedia page should be updated to reflect that, and also the 10-year-old discussion that deleted the other letters.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Adolf Hitler's Speech to the Workers of Berlin (10 December 1940)Edit

Unsourced and unlicensed, from 2015. I can find several sources both online and on Google Books which seem to be matches, but am unsure what the original source for the translation was.

In order for this to be considered PD, 1.) it would have to have been in the PD in Germany by 1996, and 2.) the English translation would have to be in the PD in the US as well, and/or whatever country it originated from. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]

  • The work, being a product of Hitler in his political office, is in the public domain; and the translation (prepared by the U.S. government) is also in the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]
    Remind me… Why are Hitler's speeches in the public domain? Xover (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
    • I can’t find it off-hand, but the URAA didn’t restore copyright to works of the German and Japanese governments following World War II. While I don’t remember how far this stretched, I’m fairly sure it would include Hitler’s speeches as a political figure (while, for example, excluding his Mein Kampf). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Xover Any 'American' copyrights owned by Hitler would have been transferred to the w:Office of Alien Property Custodian. Per 17 U.S. Code § 104A(a)(2), "Any work in which the copyright was ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian and in which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or instrumentality thereof, is not a restored work." We know for a fact this applied to Mein Kampf.... the Allies gave the copyright to the Barvarian government at the end of the war. Presumably, the same applied to his other intellectual property. Jarnsax (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jarnsax, @TE(æ)A,ea.: Do we even have a license template for this case? It's not PD-EdictGov, nor PD-USGov. PD-Ineligible would seem to be the right idea, but {{PD-Ineligible}}.
Is this even PD? It may not have been "restored", but if it's owned by the Alien Property Custodian… the US Government can still hold copyrights through deed or seizure (they just can't create new ones themselves). Xover (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Xover Poked around at the exact history and learned a bit more....
The US publishing rights (to Mein Kampf) belonged to Houghton Mifflin, and when it was seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act copyright ownership went to the US government (H-M kept the publishing rights, which was a preexisting license) and royalties were paid into the War Relief Fund until 1979, when Houghton Mifflin bought out the government royalty. I think that the "rights and claims of every character and description" (I looked up the text) seized would include the right to create and/or license a US translation of a work created in Germany (it was filmed, obviously by authority, so fixed).
It turns out that the non-US copyright had a different history. When the Nazi organizations were dissolved and their property seized by Allied Control Council Law #2 their publisher was #12 on the list. These are the rights that went to the Bavarian government in 1951. (Never dug up exactly how this happened before, I thought these rights had gone through the APC, which is part of why the story had always seemed a bit odd.)
Looking at the US Government publication in 1943, the US government owned the US copyright by seizure, so this would have been an authorized US publication. The Office of War Information was an Executive agency, and there is no copyright notice, so I think the book itself (assuming our translation matches the book) would be PD-USGov. Even if "Hitler's" US copyrights were later sold or returned (which AFAIK did not happen), that shouldn't affect the status of the translation.
Having been administered by the Alien Property Custodian is really just a bar to URAA restoration, and doesn't seem to be the ruling norm here. I think the translation (as a licensed derivative work) became PD in 1943.
As far as a specific 'not restored' license tag, I don't think that's the way to go. The URAA didn't "make" non-restored works PD, it didn't change their status at all. The actual 'license tag' needs to tell us why the work became PD, and having been owned/administered by the APC (returned or not) didn't affect the term of the copyright. It'd be more along the lines of mentioning that we checked for a URAA restoration. Jarnsax (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jarnsax: Granted I'm not really digging into this right now, but I'm having trouble figuring out the actual copyright status of this particular work, even with the above information.
Regarding the US book publication you mention, {{PD-USGov}} only applies to original works created by the government. They can hold a third party copyright and license it any way they choose. So mere publication by the government is not ipso facto proof that it is PD. It only affects secondary issues like whether it is eligible for URAA restoration.
So is it the case that the copyright has expired? Did it fail to comply with the formalities required at the time? Xover (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Xover Right. My impression is that 1943 translation by the US Government itself (not the original German text) was a "work for hire" of the OWI, a derivative work created 'by license' while the APC was in control of the copyright in the original. I doesn't look to me like the translation was ever under copyright due to this. Jarnsax (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jarnsax: a dim lightbulb begins flickering… Hmm. Ok, so the US copyright in the German-language original was seized by the Alien Property Custodian. The APC authorised an English-language translation to be made and published by the Office of War Information. OWI was a part of the federal government so its works are {{PD-USGov}} and in isolation we can use that tag for the translation.
But considering {{translation license}} requires a license tag in its |original= parameter, what is the current US status of the German-language original? Does the US still hold it (they only returned 10% of seized assets after the war I think)? Was it returned to Bavaria? Has it expired? Xover (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Xover That's one question I don't have an answer to, and not even a real idea where to search. :/ Jarnsax (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
(ce) Well, technically that isn't true, but I doubt 'go dig through some unscanned NARA records file' is realistic. Jarnsax (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Ok, let's try to reason through this…
When was the German-language original first subject of general publication (the performance of the speech doesn't count: it's just a performance, not a general publication, for copyright purposes)? Where was it first published, and was it simultaneously (within 30 days) published in the US?
If it had a copyright in the US that could be seized, the seizure did not affect that copyright: it was just a transfer of ownership like an inheritance or sale. Only if the copyright has expired through other means does that seizure come into play in that it prevents restoration by the URAA.
The most promising path to PD is that it was first published in Germany before 1977 without a copyright notice, or before 1963 with a notice but without a subsequent renewal. Stanford lists only renewals for Mein Kampf so a renewal is unlikely.
But if first publication for copyright purposes happened after the war the URAA comes back into play. And if it was unpublished until 2003 there's a pma. 70 term to deal with.
In other words, there seems to be plenty of paths to copyright for the German-language original, and the paths to PD for it hinge on when and where actual publication happened. Iff publication happened during the war, and it was seized by the APC, then it is barred from URAA restoration, but any original copyright could still subsist. Xover (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Appeal of the Council of People's Commissars to the Muslims of Russia and the EastEdit

A translation from Russian. Since the original Russian version was from 1917 it itself is in the public domain here in the US. However I can't say the same for the translation. The only source I can find in PDF form that matches what we have is from a 1996 volume of a Marxist magazine. That's not looking good for its copyright status... PseudoSkull (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]

  • I agree as to the status of the original. The translation appears to have been taken from Marxists Internet Archive, and that translation appears similar to the translation in Workers Vanguard (the Marxist magazine). The two translations are not identical, however, so I would like to hold off deletion to look into the exact source of the Internet translation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]
    • I suspect that this translation was from Soviet Documents on Foreign Policy published in 1951 and edited by Jane Degras (1905-1973). MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @TE(æ)A,ea.: Any luck? Is Mark's suspicion above of any help? --Xover (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Actually, I forgot about this. I’m looking around for it, and should be able to look at it soon. Supposing it is from the Degras Documents, and supposing (as I believe to be true) that the translations are original to that work, it is {{PD-US-no renewal}}, if there even was a copyright. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Xover: I can confirm Mark’s suspicion: this translation is found in Soviet Documents on Foreign Policy (Jane Degras ed.), Volume 1: 1917–1924 (pp. 15–17). It is copyright 1951, but there was no renewal of that copyright, so the work is PD-US-no renewal as aforesaid. It is, however, given under the title “Appeal of the Council of People’s Commissars to the Moslems of Russia and the East,” but the text is identical. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Ariane 501 Inquiry Board reportEdit

Very unlikely to be PD; made c. 1996, seems to be a university work and not a government work, and the English translation is of course even less likely to be PD. The PDF source given is now a dead link by the way. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]

  • This is not a translation; it is the original. The “Inquiry Board” consisted of some university members, but was originally an official (but independent) product of cnes, the French national space agency. I’m not precisely sure at the moment of the officiality of the report, but it sits on the line of edict (with reasoning) and government work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]
    I don't see the argument for considering this to be an edict of government?
    In any case, ESA (unlike NASA) is an IGO and not an arm of some national government. It is a membership organisation in which nations can be members, and was established by treaty. For copyright purposes it is a private organisation, and all its works are subject to copyright protection. CNES is a government agency of France, so if the report had been a product of CNES it would be a French government work; but French copyright has no PD-USGov-equivalent exception so all CNES works are protected by copyright.
    The Arian 501 Inquiry Board, as an independent board, would also not be covered by any "official work" exemptions even if ESA was a government department like NASA or the board was set up by CNES alone. In fact, under most European copyright acts I believe this would have been considered a collective work of the members of the board, rather than of the board as an organisation (meaning the term is pma. 70 from the death of the longest living author). Any exemption would have to be in the form of a contract licensing the copyrighted work to ESA or CNES (or both), and the license would have to be one compatible with our policy. Xover (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
    For this to be an edict of government in my view, the following (or some greater occurrence) would need to be true:
    1. This work was made by cnes, an agency of the French government.
    2. This work was intended to be, and is, a regulation (or a set of rules) concerning the operation of craft like the Ariane 501 so that the accident (I think) doesn’t happen again.
    3. In alignment with the previous circumstance, the non-regulation portion of the report would be considered as an extended series of opening remarks, justifying the regulation.
    I believe it meets the first of these requirements, but I can’t say the same of the other parts. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
    @TE(æ)A,ea.: I agree that the initiative came from CNES and ESA. But by the very nature of being an independent board of inquiry it is not a product of CNES (even ignoring ESA's role). Reports from independent ad hoc boards (not being legal persons in themselves) are usually collective works by the physical persons that make up the board, and as such are covered by their individual copyrights with expiration happening pma. 70 for the longest living author. If it were a product of CNES it would ipso facto not be independent. CNES and ESA make it downloadable because it is a public record, but cannot authorize any reuse or redistribution of it.
    In addition, as the report itself makes clear, the initiative did not come from CNES alone: "… the Director General of ESA and the Chairman of CNES set up an independent Inquiry Board and nominated the following members: [list of individual members]". That is, even if the work of the board were to be considered to be the product of the tasking organization, that tasking organization would include ESA which, as described above, is not covered by any "government work" exception.
    It would also be hard to achieve that effect because European copyright laws mostly do not use the concept of "work for hire" as we know it from US copyright: mostly it is the physical person in whom copyright vests, and what's covered by "work for hire" in the US is handled through employment contracts (and other such contractual arrangements). Since the board is an ad hoc entity set up for a particular purpose its members are not covered by normal employment contracts but rather by "terms of reference". And the terms of reference are provided in the report: "to determine the causes of the launch failure,; to investigate whether the qualification tests and acceptance tests were appropriate in relation to the problem encountered,; to recommend corrective action to remove the causes of the anomaly and other possible weaknesses of the systems found to be at fault."
    In addition, even if it were found to be a work of CNES, the terms of reference and the report itself makes clear that the report itself has no force of law: it only makes recommendations about actions, and one of those actions is to establish modified regulation. It is also not itself a legislative body, which is the other pathway to EdictGov.
    Bottom line is that I am unable to find any in which this can be covered by either EdictGov or a PD-USGov type copyright exception. --Xover (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I think that pretty much calls it. Not an edict (no legal force) so not PD-US by that route, and subject to a existing copyright claim by (either/or, doesn't matter) the collective authors, ESA (which is able to claim copyright in it's own works), and CNES (ditto) until a very long time from now (I'm sure some of the authors are still alive). Jarnsax (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]

His Excellency Mr. Somchai Wongsawat Education Policy 2008-2022Edit

I propose deletion of this work for the following reasons:

  1. The tagged license, Template:PD-TH-exempt, does not apply at all, because "a policy" is not a constitution, legislation, judicial decision, etc.
  2. The author, Author:Somchai Wongsawat, is still alive. Works by him are still copyrighted.

--Miwako Sato (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Miwako Sato: Please fix the (currently) 187 broken template invocations you have created by mandating a parameter before you bring this discussion here. This seems to me (unacquainted as I am with Thai copyright law) to be an “explanation[]” or “official correspondence of the Ministr[y]”—specifically, the Ministry of Education, which was headed by Somchai Wongsawat. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]
In fact, I brought this discussion here before creating that function of the template. On this page (the page "His Excellency..."), I left the template so because I don't find the work falls under any of the categories mentioned in the temple. The work (titled a "policy") seems to be a speech addressed to someone (like a policy addressed to parliament), which is not covered by Template:PD-TH-exempt. Also, it is not likely an explanation or correspondence (referring to letters, which should be something like those in Category:Correspondence). I'm fixing the template on the other pages. --Miwako Sato (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Miwako Sato: What is the source of this translation? And why are we giving authorship as the minister personally, rather than to the ministry as an organisation? Xover (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  1. After googling, I found no source of this work. Wikisource was the only result returned by Google.
  2. Whether its author is a person or organisation, it's still considered a copyrighted work. If the authorship is given to a person, the author is still alive and does not appear to have released this work into public domain. Even the authorship is instead given to a government organisation (Ministry of Education in this case), the work still can't be categorised into any of the items listed in Template:PD-TH-exempt.
--Miwako Sato (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It is not obvious to me that this text fits into any of the categories of {{PD-TH-exempt}}. In translations, especially, one cannot presume the colloquial meaning of a word applies. While it does mention things like "explanations", "correspondence", "reports", it does so in the context of a list containing "the constitution and legislation; regulations, bylaws, notifications [read: proclamations], orders, explanations [read: explanatory supporting material]; official correspondence of the Ministries [read: administrative decisions founded in the law or regulations]; judicial decisions, orders, and decisions": all things that either are laws or are necessary to fully understand the law and its interpretation. That is, the words must be understood in this context, and thus describe exceptions of the kind found in {{PD-EdictGov}} and not those found in {{PD-USGov}}. This is also in line with what I have found when researching copyright legislation in various jurisdictions around the world: mostly PD-USGov is unique, and "government work" exceptions, if present at all, mirror EdictGov and not PD-USGov.
    The work in question appears to be a "report" mostly in the sense that the minister responsible for this area is telling his superiors (unclear who, but looks to be some form of legislative assembly) how he plans to run his ministry and what his policy will be. It is not a "report" in the sense that his ministry has investigated some issue or another and is recommending something based on that investigation or summarising its findings. In essence, it is a speech (even if submitted in writing) in which the minister brags about his vision and policy over the next x years.
    It is also not in itself determinative, but the main Ministry of Education website contains the statement "สงวนลิขสิทธิ์ © 2562" (that is, "Copyright © 2019" translated to English and the Gregorian calendar). So it appears the ministry itself in general claims copyright without acknowledging any exceptions. Granted their website is like a tour of the web ca. 1996—complete with hit counters, horizontally scrolling marquees, and seizure-inducing animated gifs—so one would not necessarily expect to find more than such a blanket copyright claim; but it certainly provides no help for any claim of compatible licensing.
    Based on current information and arguments I am unconvinced that that square peg can be made to fit the round hole provided by {{PD-TH-exempt}}. The issue hinges on one's interpretation of the wording in the exemptions in combination with one's view of the nature of the text in question, so it is not entirely clear cut. But on balance and on available information I don't see this being covered by the exemptions. --Xover (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]

The Ballad of Long BenEdit

A poem with no source, no license, no stated author, and no year listed. I can't find anything, anywhere online besides us, even mentioning a poem of this name, much less giving the full poem.

Since the poem mentions 1894 (presumably that's the "'94" it's talking about) that increases the likelihood it was released before 1926. However if we don't know, we can't say for sure. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]

I came the long way round to find it: Special:WhatLinksHere/The_Ballad_of_Long_Ben gives the attribution to Henry Every (Long Ben), making that the sixteen-94. I'm guessing it's from a mid nineteenth century text. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]
It certainly wasn't written by Avery. And it's not a poem, but a Sea shanty (well, unless you're a purist). But CI's "mid nineteenth century" attribution seems plausible. Given the language used it certainly isn't much older than that, and more likely later. I'm not having much luck finding an immediate source for it, but if anyone has easy access to The Oxford Book of Sea Songs (1986) by Roy Palmer it is a likely candidate. Xover (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Ok, I finally tracked down a copy of The Oxford Book of Sea Songs and it doesn't include it; which is kind of odd in that it is rather comprehensive and includes another ballad about Avery set just prior to "’94" (the most significant year in Avery's life, the year he mutinied and took over the Charles II, renamed it Fancy, and then captured the Ganj-i-Sawai; aka. the thing he is actually famous for). I also cannot find a single reference to this ballad that predates the addition of the text here, and all those that do reference it are online sources (i.e. journalistic standards, not academic standards). There are some very few references to it (way way too few compared to even the most obscure sea shanty), but the one scholarly one reference I can find cites… Wikisource.
Consequently I'm beginning to think this text may be a modern hoax. And combined with the lack of a source or license, and the fact that we cannot identify any indication that it has been previously published, I am inclined to delete it as copyvio. Had there been any substantial evidence that this sea shanty actually existed I might have accepted a mere unfounded assumption that our text was PD-old based on the age of 99% of known shantys; but as it stands I can't see such an assumption as warranted. Xover (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
To further discredit the entry, the ballad was added by an IP address in 2012—that was their sole edit to this site. Worth noting that if this poem really originated from that user (i.e. if it was a hoax) they effectively waived their copyright of the work to the CC BY-SA 3.0 License, which Wikisource uses, by posting it on Wikisource. However, despite having that copyright status by default, it goes without saying it still wouldn't meet WS:WWI. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
It appears to date from at least 2009: https://thomo.coldie.net/2009/02/08/henry-ebery-or-henry-every/
I'm hoping the author of that blog can remember where he found it (or if he made it up!), and I left a message there. But as Xover says, there's not much sign of it on the Internet (except a few citing us, including the British Library, who really should know to at least find the source text).
That said, there's one persistent thing I found: searching for exact text, (e.g. "Here’s to gentlemen at sea tonight", but most lines of the song will do) at Google Books repeatedly produces https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Tr4WAeJtLb0C, but there are no results within the book. Very odd. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Translation:Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice No. 6083/2546/SyllabusEdit

A syllabus (summary of a judgment) is not covered by the license {{PD-TH-exempt}} as tagged.

As it is a work created under the government's control, its copyright will expire after 50 years from its creation or first publication (according to section 23), which is around 2053.

The work does not appear to have otherwise been released into public domain.

--Miwako Sato (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]

@Miwako Sato: Syllabi are usually authored by the court. Is there any reason to presume that this one wasn't also? The license tag is in any case wrong: this should be tagged {{PD-EdictGov}}. Xover (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]
This one is, indeed, authored by the court (as its heading says that its author is "Supreme Court of Justice's Bureau of Judge Trainees"). But a syllabus (summary) of a judgment is not the judgment itself, and {{PD-TH-exempt}} only applies to judgments. I think {{PD-EdictGov}} applies in the same way too, because it says it applies to "decisions", not their "summaries". --Miwako Sato (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]
EdictGov is much wider. It'll apply to explanatory material etc. as well so long as it bears in some way on the law or its interpretation. Xover (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Xover Remember that Thailand isn't a 'common law' country (re w:List_of_national_legal_systems#Common_law), so we can only look at the statutory provisions in their positive law, and the treaties they are a part of (Berne and TRIPS). A work can be 'edictgov' and denied protection in the US while still copyrighted at home, UK law being an example. It's similar to how the US states that PD-USGov only applies in the US... that they reserve the right to enforce copyright claims on such works in other jurisdictions. (ce: see https://cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#317 ) Jarnsax (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Miwako Sato The scope is wider than just judgements, per 1(1)(7)(4) of the Thai copyright act. The exemption is for "judicial decisions, orders, decisions and official reports". Since the syllabus appears to have been published by the court together with the rest of the decision, they are one work as published, and it appears to be clearly official. Being published as 'the judgement' (i.e. decision) should place the whole work (since the syllabus was written 'under direction', presumably, and so is a work for hire) in the PD.
Basically, it's not up to us to second-guess the publisher. If the Thai government owns the copyright in the syllabus, and publishes it as an integral part of a work that is ineligible for copyright (and I am making assumptions here, but presumably there is not some other "more official" version of the full judgement that does not include it) then they are placing the syllabus in the PD "as" part of the judgement. Jarnsax (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jarnsax: The full judgment is available on Wikisource (both Thai & English). The syllabus was not published together with or as part of the judgment. The judgment (file at Commons) does not contain the syllabus. The syllabus is part of a separate book, whose title translates Supreme Court Judgments of the Year 2546 BE (Thammasat University library). Moreover, like I said above, a work created "under direction" of a Thai government agency is copyrighted for 50 years from its creation or first publication, according to the Thai Copyright Act, section 23. --Miwako Sato (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Miwako Sato Ok, that's a different situation than I assumed was going on, and changes things drastically (I was assuming this was published similar to US cases, where an 'official syllabus' is often published as the introduction to the case in the judgement itself.)
With it having been initially published separately, it's status is going to be that of the book it was published in (I see a BY-NC-ND license, but can't see the copyright page or colophon). I would assume, just from that, that you are correct we can't host it.
I'm not disagreeing about section 23, or the term. It would just have been 'overridden' if the government had published that copyrighted work as an 'integral part' of a work that was ineligible (the judgement). That not being the case, you can disregard my objection as a misunderstanding of the situation. Jarnsax (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[]
FYI https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf (US Govt) is an example of what I was assumed was going on... where the syllabus is a 'work for hire' by the Reporter of Decisions, but placed in the PD by it's publication by the court as part of the official decision. (ignoring PD-USGov as irrelevant for the example.) Jarnsax (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Miwako Sato: The linked website appears to be unavailable currently. Who is the author and the publisher of Supreme Court Judgments of the Year 2546 BE? If it is an entirely unrelated entity (person, university, company, etc.) then it will presumably be in copyright. If it is like similar records published in the US, the notional author is the "reporter" of the judgement and includes things like the syllabus. Xover (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@Xover
Collection Court Judgment
Title Judgment of the Supreme Court, B.E. 2546, Volume 11
Contributors Suwan Trakanphan, Editor
Keyword Supreme Court verdict
Description Judgment of the Supreme Court, B.E. 2546, Volume 11
Publisher Office of the Court of Justice
Date 2003
"Judgment of the Supreme Court, 2003, Volume 11 is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Thailand License ."
(from https://digital.library.tu.ac.th/tu_dc/frontend/Info/item/dc:140163 translated by Google) Jarnsax (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks. For some reason I can't access that website. Considering it is published by the Publisher Office of the Court of Justice my conclusion in the absence of contrary evidence is that this falls within similar exceptions as the equivalent SCOTUS material would. I've not been able to track down relevant info on สุวรรณ ตระการพันธุ์ (Suwan Trakanphan) so I am open to the possibility that their affiliation may point in the direction of this being an independent work, despite the publisher, but absent that I'm leaning in the direction of {{PD-EdictGov}}. Xover (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Manual for Revolutionary LeadersEdit

I assume that this is in the public domain because of failure to include a copyright notice, but if so it should be tagged as such with an appropriate license. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[]

It was printed without a copyright notice in 1972; I checked the original scan referred to on the front matter page. This would make the work public domain for that reason alone. I believe this was purposeful, actually—I notice that at least a number of socialist/anarchist works from around this time were printed without a copyright notice on purpose, either because they had a moral sentiment against copyright in general, or because they wanted their political message to be spread with more leisure.
Absent of the copyright status, though, it should be scan-backed. What we currently have seems to be nothing more than an OCR dump. Furthermore, it's not even complete in terms of that. So I think this is definitely in WS:PD territory. Scan backing it is fine IMO, but for what we currently have, I say   Delete. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Agreed on the should be scan-backed, but first wanted to confirm that I wasn't missing something on the PD status before uploading to commons and going through the migration. MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • If it was first published in the US before 1977 without a copyright notice it should be clearly fine as {{PD-US-no-notice}}. There are tons of weird exceptions that can apply depending on date, country of origin, registration vs. notice, renewals, etc. etc.; but at a cursory glance I see no obvious reason to assume these apply here. --Xover (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Constitution of the Communist Party of China (2017)Edit

The work was suggested for speedy deletion by Kanwenjian with the rationale "Article 5 of the Chinese copyright law does not exempt copyright of Communist Party documents", but it should imo be discussed here first. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]

  •   Delete Agree this was not suitable for speedy. However, it appears to be the political program of the political party, and not a product of the government of the nation state, although the distinction between these is often academic. As such it is the work of a private organisation and not subject to any government work exception at home, not any edicts of government exceptions in the US. Xover (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]

General interest (not about a specific fileEdit

While Googling around copyright matters I found this interesting article [7].... The title "Simultaneous Internet Publication and the Berne Convention" expresses what it's about pretty well...to quote, "This Article recommends that works of foreign origin should still be included in the definition of “United States works” when the copyright holder actively solicits customers in the United States via the Internet" and justifies it pretty well IMO. Seems like the argument (or at least points from it) could be enlightening here....I vaguely recall an Australian case (regarding slander, I believe) hinging on this. (c.e. I seem to be unable to copy a working link.... Google it, its in the "Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal.") Jarnsax (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Yeah. I don't see where it makes any difference for us, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

The Poor PeopleEdit

1908 work by Tolstoy, originally written in Russian. The text does not specify a translator, and it only gives RevoltLib as a source (which would make it post-2016 and in copyright). Xover (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]

ParipatalEdit

English translation of a traditional Hindi text. Original is almost certainly PD-old, but there is no information about source or translator. The contributor (who has all of 36 global edits on Wikimedia projects, all of them in 2013) was approached about this issue right after upload but never responded. Xover (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Translation:Order of the Supreme Commander on May 9, 1945, No. 369Edit

An order from Joseph Stalin (1878–1953) to "the troops of the Red Army and the Navy". The translation seems pretty clearly to be a Wikisource translation (CC BY-SA 3.0). But what do we call the Russian original? It also contains some obvious errors in transcription/translation, so it would not be amiss if someone were inclined to scan-back it. Xover (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Wikisource:Translations#Wikisource original translations explicittely demands that "A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki, where the original language version is complete at least as far as the English translation." It may be the right time to start enforcing this rule. It is very difficult to patrol frequent attempts of anon users to improve our existing translations without direct access to some computer-search-friendly original (and I have to admit that I often simply give up patrolling changes to translation pages for this reason). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You're not alone. Nobody really patrols the Translation: namespace for this very reason, and as a result it is a complete mess. On bad days I think to myself that we should just nuke the whole namespace and start again from a blank slate and strict enforcement of a scan-requirement. Xover (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The Net of FaithEdit

c. 1443 Czech work by Peter Chelčický (c. 1390 – c. 1460), that claims to have been "translated in 1947 as part of a Bachelor's of Divinity thesis at the University of Berkeley." The source is however specified as nonresistance.org, which specifies no licensing. The translator is given as "Enrico C. S. Molnár", who appears to have either died in 1999 or may still be living.

@Jan.Kamenicek: I think possibly you may be interested in this work. Xover (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Xover: That source is spurious, and a later attribution; that “edition” may be found on IA here. This would be PD-US-no-notice for the thesis, right? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    The source (nonresitance.org) was probably right because the IA scan is also a 2006 reprint by nonresistance.org. What is more, as an IA contributor they mention Tom Lock who runs nonresistance.org and with whom I cooperated when saving On Spiritual Warfare by the same author. I agree that we can assume {{PD-US-no-notice}} for the 1947 thesis (if not, then {{PD-US-no-renewal}} is a certainty). If the edition available from the IA is found satisfactory, I will be happy to proofread it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Jan.Kamenicek: Unlike On The Spiritual Battle, which is listed as being translated by Lock and Enns, The Net of Faith is listed as being translated by an "Enrico C. S. Molnár" (whose identity I haven't been able to establish with any certainty in a quick bit of googling, but is once listed with vital years 1913–1999). Thus Lock and Enns do not have the power to license this work, barring some form of copyright transfer from Molnár. Xover (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Xover: Of course, I know. I wrote about it only to show how I know that Tom Lock is connected with nonresistance.org and that the contributor who added it to Wikisource could really have nonresistance.org as their source (because above it was doubted as spurious). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @TE(æ)A,ea.: A thesis submission is just limited publication. In order to be published for copyright purposes some further action must take place, for example if nonresistance.org had gotten a license from Molnár or his estate to publish it that would then constitute general publication. Xover (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Xover: Is there any official ruling that explicitely states that thesis submission is not considered fully published? I have found two sources which seem to state otherwise: Copyright and Publication Status of Pre-1978 Dissertations, p.825 (it deals primarily with dissertations, but in principle it may IMO apply to any university thesis), and especially Copyright and Cultural Institutions, p. 230). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Jan.Kamenicek: I haven't (re)read Hirtle 2009, so it may contain something of relevance (Peter Hirtle is generally a good source for such things), but last I heard his stance was that general publication could not be assumed for dissertations. Clement and Levine 2011 is an interesting approach, but the article suffers from methodological problems and confirmation bias. For example, they quote a commercial microfilm distributor assuring university publishers that works distributed on microfilm, as a format, are eligible for copyright protection (through fulfilling the deposit requirement iff deposited with the LoC) in order to argue that the works in question can not be protected by copyright.
    But mostly, Clement and Levine do not really make a legal argument (they're mostly doing digital humanities, not law) and consequently ignore Estate of Martin Luther King. In that case the 11th Circuit found that King's I Have a Dream, which was performed before a crowd of thousands, broadcast nationally on multiple networks, and where they handed out the text of the speech in a press tent at the event, didn't constitute general publication. The court sets the bar pretty high and establishes several factors that must be present in order to find that a general publication has happened, not the least of which is that the publication has to be authorised (cf. also Diversey v. Schmidly, 738 F. 3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2013)).
    The bottom line is that while there are circumstances under which a pre-1978 dissertation could have ended up in the public domain, it cannot be assumed; and determining the actual status with any certainty would require specific knowledge of the circumstances of the particular dissertation in question. Xover (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Xover: Diversey dealt with a university stealing a student’s dissertation before it was finished, making copies, and distributing those copies in the university’s library. The case also deals specifically with (unauthorized) distribution. The language in this case (which is newer, and thus may carry more weight) implies that once the dissertation was placed on the library’s catalog, where anyone could view it or check it out, it becomes published for copyright concerns. (See p. 13.) [The library can’t claim fair use for distributing copies of a work that was not legally published; by inference, a dissertation is published when placed in the library’s catalog for viewing, a claim substantiated elsewhere in the opinion.] In Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., the issue was that his dramatic reading of his (prepared) speech was a performance, not a publication; although I may be misremembering, as I haven’t read it recently. If my memory is correct, Estate applies with less force here, and Hotaling is more relevant. (Also, thinking about this, these important and discussion-relevant cases should be scan-backed here.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    The MLK case says:
    We emphasize the summary judgment posture of this case, which necessitates that we disregard evidence that may be important or even dispositive at trial. In other words, in this summary judgment posture, we consider only the evidence with respect to which there is no genuine issue of material fact. This evidence includes only the fact of the oral delivery of the Speech to a large audience and the fact that the sponsors of the event including Dr. King sought and successfully obtained live broadcasts on radio and television and extensive contemporary coverage in the news media. In this regard, we do not consider at this stage of the litigation two potentially important pieces of evidence brought to our attention by CBS. First, an advance text of the Speech was apparently available in a press tent on the day of the speech. According to an eyewitness affidavit submitted by CBS, members of the public at large—not merely the press—were permitted access to the press tent and were given copies of the advance text. However, the Estate has proffered affidavits which contradict the statements of the CBS witness, and suggest that access was controlled by the SCLC within reasonable means. Moreover, the Estate argues that much of the content of the Speech was generated extemporaneously by Dr. King and was not contained in this advance text—an argument that we do not consider but that can be explored by the district court.
    So the court said that if the text of the speech was available to everyone, then that might change things. Since a University library offering works via ILL does make it available to everyone, that clearly distinguishes this from the MLK case. The crowd and broadcast parts are irrelevant for this; it's understood that's not publication. In general, if a dissertion was completed at a US university and a copyright notice-free copy was given to the university for their library, to be distributed to a general audience, I'd say that's a clear case of general publication without notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    That they don't rule on those points does not mean they don't consider the associated issues in their reasoning for what they do rule on. They go into significant depth on what factors would be necessary in order for a general publication to have occurred, and as I recall (I'd have to re-read it to be sure), that includes the need for the publication to be authorised.
    Which bears on this case in the sense that consensus in the area appears to be that mere deposit in a university's archive is not sufficient even if a given university is willing to distribute it through the ILL, because 1) ILL may be sufficiently restricted in who can use it and through access agreements, and 2) deposit is required in order to get your degree (I think some places they even specify the number of paper copies you have to submit) but not necessarily agreement to publish beyond academic fair use and archives exceptions. Even Clement and Levine (who, as mentioned, suffer from too much wishful thinking) found that their most optimum selection of "community of practice" saw a significant difference between microfilm distribution (which, AIUI, was a commercial service) and deposit with possible ILL access.
    If you want to persuade me that this particular thesis is PD through some path involving a general publication without notice I am happy to entertain the argument; but that all pre-1978 US thesis and dissertations can be ipso facto presumed PD is a couple of bridges too far. In addition, it would be nonsensical for us to adopt such a crude presumption that directly conflicts with what US university libraries and archives' own practice and guidance is. Xover (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • The publication of a dissertation is authorised, because the writer of the dissertation chooses to go to university, enter a program requiring the submission of a dissertation, write a dissertation, and submit it for approval, &c. It is, in sum, the writer’s choice to enter the dissertation program, and thus they must allow (and legally authorise) the publication of the dissertation once written and formally received. “ILL may be… restricted,” but there is no indication here that they are so restricted. That university libraries are more difficult to access than other libraries is not relevant, so long as the library is not a private (whether business or personal) one. Really, I would be more inclined to consider the deposition of dissertation copies as the method in which dissertations are published, and thus released to the academic community. I don’t think that such a policy is in such great disagreement with (then-)contemporary university library practice, either. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I tried to contact Tom Lock but did not get any answer. However, I still think that this work is in public domain, per above. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

My HomelandEdit

The lyrics of the Iraqi national anthem, originally written c. 1934 as a poem by Ibrahim Touqan (1905–1941). Touqan was Palestinian, and the work was published during the British Mandate. During this period the term was pma. 50, and it does not seem subsequent laws were made retroactive (until the Israeli law took effect in 2007), so that copyright expired in 1991. Palestine is not, so far as I can tell, a signatory to Berne or a WTO member, mainly because neither the UK nor the US recognises them as a sovereign state. Neither, for the same reason, does there appear to be any bilateral treaty on copyright between the US and Palestine. In other words, so far as I can tell this work has no copyright protection in the US. However, if by some miracle the US should recognise Palestine and they join the WTO, the URAA would kick in and might restore a pub. +95 copyright (until 2030) for it (probably not, but if all the right esoteric variables shook out just wrong it just might).

So the original is public domain enough for Wikisource purposes, at least currently. But how in the heck do we tag this?

And then there is the issue of the translation, for which no source is provided, and given its popularity in the relevant region pinning down first publication for a given translation is going to be… challenging. Xover (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Wikipedia provides two references for the translation. The first eventually links back to Wikipedia, and the second is a completely different translation. See this edit, which added the first translation; aside from the line breaks, it is nearly exactly what we have here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • It would have a restoration date on the date of accession no, not the 1996 date? So it would have to have Palestine decide to keep it copyrighted (e.g. via pma + 100 or something) so it would not be PD in Palestine when it joins but that doesn't seem likely (even if was in a different non-Berne signatory).
(2) The “date of restoration” of a restored copyright is—
(A) January 1, 1996, if the source country of the restored work is a nation adhering to the Berne Convention or a WTO member country on such date, or
(B) the date of adherence or proclamation, in the case of any other source country of the restored work.

MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]

It is exceedingly unlikely to happen, yes. For all practical purposes we can ignore the possibility until there is a US-recognized Palestine (or the opposite) with copyright relations for which we can make an assessment. --Xover (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I would just tag it as in the public domain on the URAA restoration date. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The Mistakes of JesusEdit

1932 work by William Floyd (1871–1943), first published, as far as I can tell, in New York by the Freethought Press Association. I have been unable to find an accessible scan of it, but several of the transcriptions include the original copyright notice and the catalog of copyright entries has a 1934 registration of it. However, searching the Stanford database I can't find a renewal for it. So, absent contrary evidence I am going to call this {{PD-US-no-renewal}}. It would still be very good to find a scan for it. Xover (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Loyalty (Colby)Edit

According to the LoC, this is a 1920 speech by Bainbridge Colby (1869–1950). The LoC describes him as Secretary of State at the time of the speech, a position he was appointed to on March 23, 1920. The recording from which our transcription appears to have been made is cited as "Bridgeport, Conn. : Made by the Columbia Graphophone Manufacturing Company, [1920].".

Absent objections / evidence to the contrary, I am inclined to tag this as {{PD-USGov}} (with a fallback to {{PD/US|1950}}). Xover (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Letter to Chrestus of SyracuseEdit

Undated translation of letter (decree) by Constantine (274–337) originally written in… not English… with no source and no license. The one other translation I checked had a markedly different text. It also appears to be an excerpt, so personally I would be inclined to excise it regardless, but given the type of material it seems not unlikely that the translation is PD-old if someone wants to put in the effort to save it. Xover (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • The original of this translation is, I believe, from Loeb 153 (Eusebius: Historia Ecclesiastica), at 457–461. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Decision of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party Concerning the Great Proletarian Cultural RevolutionEdit

The text is the English translation of the Decision of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party Concerning the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. However, it is believed that the text fails the requirement of {{PD-PRC-exempt}}, which doesn't exempt Chinese Communist Party documents from copyright. Though Chinese case laws once did ruled that CCP Constitutions and CCP National Congresses Reports can be treated as works with administrative, legislative and judicial properties, the text itself clearly don't fall under the two kinds of work (see also s:zh:Template:PD-PRC-CPC, which sums up the current consensus on Chinese Wikisource. The issue on whether CCP Constitutions and CCP National Congresses Reports fall under Chinese public domain is still controversial there).

The text is created in 1966, which enters Chinese public domain in 2016 (1966+50=2016), and fails the URAA date of 1996-01-01. The text is therefore not in US public domain, and fails the ordinary copyright requirement for English Wikisource works.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Also please refer to the corresponding deletion request on Commons.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
And the corresponding text on Chinese Wikisource, in which its copyright tag confirmed that the original text itself doesn't fall under Chinese official-work public domain.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Just so y'all know, I truly hate everything to do with copyright. All the issues and especially the 'laws' are quite beyond me. Your pointing out URAA and then my cursory reading of it and the discussions only confirms my hate for copyright. Blech! Oh well, the work was an interesting read. I suppose the chairman could never have been satisfied as a copyright lawyer - not evil enough (but almost). Shenme (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If it stresses you out, anything published more than 95 years ago is public domain in the US. You can also worry about life+50 for China if you need but that's not a concern for us. That keeps it nice and simple, without misidentifying works as PD when they're not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (2020)Edit

The text is the translation of the 2020 version of the Chinese Copyright Law, which is translated by en.pkulaw.cn, a subsidiary of Peking University, and states that "© 2021 Chinalawinfo Co., Ltd. All Rights Reserved Peking University Center for Legal Information". The text is clearly not an official translation, fails the requirement of {{PD-PRC-exempt}}, and is copyrighted and unfree.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]

One may also refer to Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2020#IMPORTANT! Foreigners in China during the epidemic must abide by the following, where Chinese legislation translations from the same site are deleted.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Wandering around, I found at NCAC "National Copyright Administration of the People's Republic of China" the 2010 version translated by (presumably) that government organ. At their Top News and Achievements I can see they know the 2020 amendment "will come into force on June 1, 2021". However I can't find the English translation for the 2020 like I can for the 2010 amendment. They haven't caught up?
At english.gov.cn they are similarly stuck at the 2010 version. They haven't caught up either?
Everything I can find so far seems to derive from ChinaLawInfo, e.g. "it's online!", so no help. Shenme (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Sorry about that, perhaps I think the next step may be trying to do some translation based on the 2010 version Copyright Law and the 2020 Amendment Decision.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If own translation is required (and not doable by me!) then these notes might be really useful. Shenme (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Strike Against War (1916)Edit

While the speech itself is in the public domain due to it being given before 1926, this copydump could have been taken from a number of facsimile online sources, all of which appear to have been copied from Helen Keller: Her Socialist Years (1967), a collection of speeches which contained a copyright notice. It says in the title page of that book that the book was edited, so there's no way to determine with absolute confidence whether or not what's presented was changed in some meaningful (and therefore copyrightable) way. The book itself cannot be sourced because the introduction to it at least is original to the author, a Philip S. Foner, professor of history at Lincoln University. Can anybody link me to an original, preferably pre-1926, source for this speech? If not, then the copyright (at least of this version) may very well belong to Foner, and there's no way to truly determine otherwise. I also have my suspicion that the paper transcript to the speech is so rare that Foner, being an academic and a historian, may have been the only person with access to it.

I want to note, however, that this was not an instance of the speech being published posthumously, as Keller died after it was published, while only a single year later. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The source appears to be the 6 January 1916 edition of The New York Call socialist newspaper.MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@MarkLSteadman: I can't find a scan of it online. Do you have a link to it? PseudoSkull (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't, just saw other books referencing that as the source. I found 08-12 here but not 1916: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/the-new-york-call/index.htm, maybe someone can request it or swing by the NYPL or someone with access to a newspaper db ...
  • Keep. Scan-backed to Call publication. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Retracting my deletion vote as nom. @TE(æ)A,ea.: Impressive, where did you find it? Did you scan it yourself? PseudoSkull (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Václav Havel's 1990 speech in CongressEdit

I am considering adding the speech of Czechoslovak president Václav Havel from the joint session of the U.S. Congress on 21 February 1990. This speech was performed in Czech and simultaneously translated into English. The English version was published in the Congressional Record of that day, pp. 2601–2109. Do I judge it right that it is in the public domain in the U. S.? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]