Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2011-06

Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


The following discussion is closed:
Kept with {{Pd/1996|1951}} while neither Iran nor USA copyrights it.--Jusjih (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks to be a work originally published in 1930, with the author dying in 1950s. Translated by a Wikipedian. So it would seem that the original work may not have been freely available to be translated. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following has been added to the work
  • Translator's Weblog
  • Hedayat, Sadegh. Buried Alive. Tehran: Javidan Publications, 1920, P. 37-41.
That said, the work did previously say 1930, and the WP article for the author says 1930, so that would still seem to be the year of publication. As the author was born early 20thC, it seems less likely that the work was from 1920. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Possible, however, the source (the blog it appears at) [still] says 1930, other [ghits] sources indicate a 1932 collection of short stories, Three Drops of Blood (1932). The contributor has been approached twice, first on the source, then as copvio; the response has been unhelpful. cygnis insignis 16:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The contributor proffers this at their talk cygnis insignis 16:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Hi! This story is currently banned in Iran & no publisher can publish Hedayat's works. All his stories have been put in public domain by Hedayat's family and one can download most of them in Persian on his official website at This story is included on this page. Please remove this story from deletion list" User talk:Mohammad Rajabpur

Iran has no copyright relations with the U.S., so technically there is no U.S. protection for the original. I think Iran does have its own internal copyright law though, which I think Wikimedia does try to respect, which is 30 pma. If so that would mean this work has expired in Iran too (and did in 1982 at the latest). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pan-Wikimedia? I would think that for en.WS and en.WP it would be problematic in any case where the Iranian law kept something under copyright past when the US would keep it under copyright were there copyright agreements. In any case, the URAA states that when the US and Iran get a copyright agreement, the URAA will take effect as of the agreement, and no works out of copyright in Iran will be returned to copyright in the US. The catch is, if I understand the politics right, this is most likely to coincide with Iran joining WIPO (or at least that's been Iran's stated intentions) and hence their copyright duration would go up to at least life+50, if not life+70. Still, that would keep it out of copyright in the US unless Iran jumped to life+70 (instead of gradually converged, like Israel did and Australia is doing).--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe not Pan-Wikimedia. But I do recall there was a wish from Jimbo to respect such foreign copyrights even if they were not Berne members. Perhaps that is just commons. Anyways, irrelevant here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to Circular 38a of the U.S. Copyright Office, Iran has no official copyright relations whatsoever with the United States. Published works originating in Iran thus are not copyrighted in the United States, regardless of the local copyright laws of these countries. Source: w:Copyright in Iranunsigned comment by Mohammad Rajabpur (talk) .

The book was published in the year 1930 in Iran. The year had been mistyped. "Buried Alive" in Persian "زنده به گور" was published in the Iranian year 1309 which happens to be 1930 AD

To be pedantically correct, works by Iranians (or nationals of another nation that doesn't have copyright relations) that are first published in Iran (or another such nation) and not published in a Berne Convention nation in the next 30 days are not copyrighted in the US. There's a number of i's to dot and t's to cross here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like this work is out of copyright in Iran and the US. I don't see the dedication to the PD on (either in English or through Google Translate), but I guess that doesn't really matter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
kept {{PD-RSGov}} — billinghurst sDrewth 03:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has been sitting in PD-Manifesto discussion, however, brought it here as it references PD-Serbia-Gov (closest is Commons:Template:PD-SerbiaGov) which seems to be Article 6 in and something seemingly worth a discussion and clarity on that point. If it does fall there, then it can be relicenced, otherwise, we can delete it as CV. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the 'Mosque' Isn't Built, This Is No Longer America

The following discussion is closed:
Kept: license is valid, added link to the work's talk page, Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another Moore work, and this has been stated as being released under a creative commons licence. I have asked the user to substantiate the application of the licence for the specific work. Billinghurst (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Keep Yup, says CC-BY-3.0 right on Moore's site below the article (the link is now on the article). The "America is Not Broke" posting does not have that license mentioned, but this is plain. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good-o. We really need to provide better information about the use of talk page {{textinfo}} for provision of the "proof" and a link to source. Making a claim alone just causes work for others. Billinghurst (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
from 1910 work; alternate source falsely claimed copyright — billinghurst sDrewth 18:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The work Iran Constitution of 1906 has a specific note about the organisation that undertook the translation from Farsi, and the licence condition applicable. Unfortunately it clearly states non-commercial sites, which would exclude Wikisource hosting the work due to our inability to apply the restriction. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete without exporting to Canadian Wikilivres. I see the front page of the source saying: "Persons wishing non-commercial use of any of this material should notify the editor of intended user and use."--Jusjih (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This translation is originally from w:Edward Granville Browne "The Persian Revolution 1906-1909", which ist PD. Do not delete this text! --Wvk (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can see the work at and the text does seem to equate, so this looks like a case of claiming copyright without valid cause. — billinghurst sDrewth 18:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
kept, no renewal — billinghurst sDrewth 06:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Parking in middle of cleanup]. Work states that it was published in 1924. No source, incomplete and may OCR errors, no licence. It needs some digging. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for leaving us an easy one. It's a typical text dump that I found to be from an Internet Archive text. Not found on Stanford database so PD-US-non-renewal and therefore not a copyright issue here. ResScholar (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
PD-1996 with caveat. ResScholar (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion was moved from Tannertsf's user page regarding the beginning of a new scan index of an early volume of The Cambridge Ancient History.

Tannertsf, this work doesn't seem to be under copyright in Great Britain, but what about the United States?... ResScholar (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at a later volume it would seem to be published simultaneously in US, so it should be a case of checking for copyright renewal in the US. I have identified authors and their dates of life. All that said, why oh why are we having a PDF, they simply are make work and are not good for big collaborative works. We should be getting the djvu, either through direct production from the PDF or via upload to, and grabbing a derived file. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those cities in your Internet Archive link refer to sister publishing locations, but were all books published by Cambridge University actually produced at those locations, or do we need to look at each work case by case? As for pdf vs. jpg, I will take your word for it, because filetypes is not my bag. I will move this discussion to WS:COPYVIO as it may not be answerable by mere mortals. In the mean time I will look for instantiation of a title page of this work with an American location on it, in case the question can be mooted in this way.ResScholar (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I discovered was that while many booksellers list Macmillan-New York as the place of publication on their used copies of this work, possibly they are assuming it was an American publication when they see the list of various publication locations on the opposite page. There is no copy at the Internet Archive showing Macmillan as the publisher, and perhaps tellingly, Google Books doesn't preview any volume of the work. This looks like another undeterminable case as to whether it was published within thirty days of original publication. Only Macmillan would seem to have knowledge of this, and they probably have their money budgeted for other things than copyright hunts for Wikisource. ResScholar (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Comment Book reviews exist in the right time period [1]. Is the work a corporate publication or one of individual components? If it is a corporate publication as works for hire, could it be argued that the copyright was 50 years from date of publication, rather than dates of death? If the work is out of copyright in the UK, then is it the case that it was out of copyright by 1995? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to admit that review is very tantalizing: it unmistakably gives the New York publisher and might be matched up to a similarly-timed London review in the London Times (both being newspapers of record and liable to get the review out at the earliest possible time after publication). Work-for-hire question: no idea. But what the editors said they did was to divide the work and assign an author to each chapter. Some enterprising reader has submitted individual chapters to the Internet Archive; if the picking was determined by U.S. copyright on an individual author basis, perhaps we can follow that author's lead here at Wikisource and gloss over the editorial contribution of the sharing out as immaterial as only disintegrated parts of the whole work would remain. But in any case, to state what was perhaps too obvious for you to mention, the editors were still alive later than 70 years before the 1996 cut-off date. ResScholar (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is only considered as a UK published work and it is a work for hire and published pre-1946, it is only fifty years which is where my musing was occurring; and why my musing went in that direction is due to the reproductions at Cambridge Histories Online. This would obviate the consideration of the years of death of the two editors who lived past 1949.

If it is not a work for hire then we are going to need to consider each part on the status of the author of individual parts. I still would argue that this is simultaneously published and the check should be for US registration of copyright and renewal. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had checked the US renewal first; there doesn't seem to be a renewal record for any Cambridge history. What do you suggest? That I check the London Times? Or do you have a better reason [than my "two review" idea] why you think it was simultaneously (within 30 days) published? What's at stake is practically all the Cambridge Ancient History volumes at Internet Archive on similar grounds. My memory may be faulty but I think I recall the editor's preface being signed in April 1923 but the NYT review being in January 1924 [It was faulty! The 2nd edition preface was signed April 1924]. So [or, rather, but] it's not impossible they held off on an American publication.
The fact that Cambridge University Press is offering out all their Histories to subscribers, however, means to me that either the various histories were works-for-hire that expired their copyright or that they are present licensing, or that Cambridge University Press made arrangements with every single author's estate to license out the works in the history sets they offer. I suggest we check the contents of Cambridge Histories Online for a preponderence of authors who, if not for the fact they were hired out, would be eligible for copyright and able to exercise it independently of Cambridge's licensing projects. This would be especially telling with more recent works. If all of the larger history works (there were many besides the "Ancient", "Medieval" and "Modern") are available monolithically with no gaps, I think we can reasonably presume Cambridge has had a work-for-hire policy with their histories. Do you agree with my rationale? ResScholar (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC) addended 23:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC) addended 00:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well my descriptions of my possible next moves got me curious, and I went right to Cambridge Histories Online. I can't find their first edition Ancient Histories on the website. Or any other work written before 1963, which is telling in another way, because that is just about the work-for-hire copyright duration. Of the Histories there, there are omitted volumes, but that seems to be only because they aren't written yet. Due to the magnitude of the completeness of the works licensed by Cambridge and absence of those that would be there if they were licensing on behalf of the authors, I am ready to vote keep for this work and all pre-1946 works in the set on the presumption of a work-for-hire arrangement. ResScholar (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your reasoning sounds good to me. There is some uncertainty around the exact nature of every single component, if we want a rigid absolutely no risk whatsoever position, then we should delete, however, based on circumstantial evidence, and other publication on the web, to me it looks and feels okay. If we source it from IA, then the worst that is likely to happen would be a takedown notice, and we have lost some effort. If the work is of that level of interest to the contributor, and that loss of effort is a risk with which they are comfortable, then let it be IMNSHO and I am comfortable with keep. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Addenda. Keep of the work, not of the format. We should be having a djvu. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Change to .djvu DONE (after proposal seconded by Tannertsf). Will keep this discussion open two weeks (12 more days) as customary. ResScholar (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
kept, no renewal — Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm confused about this one. We've had it since 2007 with a {{PD-US-no-renewal}} template thanks to a COTW. Presumably the text is from PG, who state that they have done an extensive search and have been unable to find a renewal per [2]. In addition many bloggers etc. claim that it was not renewed. However, when I look on the United States Copyright Office website I find that there are three listings from 1984 and 1987. I've researched the "Better-little books" business and that is how it was originally published in 1939. The cover image is used throughout wikimedia but that's going to be a commons issue to sort - once we've had a go? Thoughts? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was it renewed within the first copyright period, which I believe is 27 years? If not, then one would believe that it went into the public domain, and an attempt to register in 1984 would be recorded though invalid. Registration would not extract the work from the public domain, just keep it there. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concur with Billinghurst's appraisal, and wondering why {{PD-US-no-renewal}} does not say what the time period is. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, for something published in 1939 it would have to be renewed in either 1966 or 1967 (which predate the online records), i.e. at least 27 years after it was first published / registered but not later than Dec 31 in the 28th year. Stanford has a searchable database for earlier book records here; Google has one here. If no registration, it became PD on Jan 1, 1968, and nothing could restore it. The three entries above are not renewal entries either; presumably those are to copyright additional matter in new printings or something like that. The above entries look to be not registrations, but are rather "recording documents", I think indicating transfer of copyright or other matters pertaining to copyright -- basically just a notification to the Copyright Office for the record. They were done in bulk with lots of other titles... probably just included the name in case copyright existed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks all for the pointers. I've gone back through everything and can't even find the initial registration. Looks like the renewal for this one was missed. Odd that, given the Stratemeyer Syndicate's almost paranoia over their books. Now, I'll try and find some scans for it.
@Carl, I should have picked up the 1984/1987 dates. The Syndicate sold out to Simon & Schuster and transferred the copyrights over at that time.
@Jeepday, the reason there is no time period, is that Victor Appleton was one of many pseudonyms used by the Syndicate and the actual authors sold their copyrights to the Syndicate. Therefore, there is no date of death. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant to say that {{PD-US-no-renewal}} should be updated to say "and copyright was not renewed by Dec 31 in the 28th year after publication." If the template said that, we would not have had this conversation, as the work is clearly in the public domain. Jeepday (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The template currently is {{PD-US-no-renewal|author's death year}}, so maybe what we are looking for is something that says {{PD-US-no-renewal|publication_year=XXXX}} and we work out how we want the template to work from that point around the variations. Probably something that can be worked upon at Template talk:PD-US-no-renewal. To me, the year of death of the author is irrelevant with this template. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concur JeepdaySock (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like the template is using that value to indicate copyright terms in other countries, and also to categorize based on pma. Kinda odd, and it has no relevance in the U.S., but ... not necessarily wrong. Yes, a publication year argument could be used to give a better description. The template assumes that people know the 28-year rule but it wouldn't hurt to spell it out. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Links to the scans of the renewal books are here (sometimes pointing to Google, sometimes to other sources). Of course, if the renewal doesn't exist, you won't find it :-) I don't think that all the old registration books are online... just the renewal volumes (registration was not a requirement to hold copyright in the first 28 years). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The following discussion is closed:
Deleted for no evidence of licensing but may be undeleted if receiving proper license.--Jusjih (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks copyvio. Generally problematic, has no publication details, no source, and no further attention to detail that allows us to host it. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source given on the talk page is a deadlink.--Longfellow (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Appears to come from this petition; no indication of copyright status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sent an email asking for a free license. Delete if there is a negative response, else we can happily keep. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 08:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speech delivered in 2007 in London by Nelson Mandela. Not, as far as I can tell, covered by any of the exceptions to copyright. Was tagged {{PD-SA-speech}}, but that's clearly inapplicable as it's not a South African work; and in any case isn't sufficient to be PD in US law. - Htonl (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • delete speech delivered by a citizen, no evidence that it is PD. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • So why not {{PD-UK-speech}}? A speech made in public is inherently a public event in the public domain by default. But the recording and reporting of it is another matter. Geofferybard (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Martin Luther King's heirs have sued and won over the copyright to his 'I have a dream' speech. Public speeches are not necessarily PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no evidence presented that the work is not protected by copyright
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Presentation by Bill Cosby in 2004, there is neither source nor licence. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete -- classic "a performance in public does not equate to automatically making it Public Domain". — George Orwell III (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 02:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Letter reputedly by Malcolm X, and quoted as being published in an Alex Haley book about Malcolm X. If first published as cited, it would seem to be still under copyright, and I cannot think of any loophole for why it would not be covered by copyright. Looks to have been sitting with {{no licence}} for a period of time. Billinghurst (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The letter was written in 1964. I doubt that it is unencumbered by copyright. The same is probably true of The Ballot or the Bullet (also by Malcolm X in 1964 and listed as "no license" for 16 months). — Malik Shabazz (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
two works deleted, no evidence presented that the works can be kept
The following discussion is closed:
deleted as well as the main namespace transclusion — billinghurst sDrewth 02:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This file was imported by Yann from a Library of Congress website exhibition on Author:Hannah Arendt's manuscripts. But if you read the copyright notices carefully, The Library of Congress is making Fair Use of its collection. Then it goes on to say that works under contracts to publishers are not free for reproduction from the site. The Origins of Totalitarianism belongs to this category, at least in the past. And when you look up the work on the Stanford database, this 1951 work was in fact renewed. I hate to deliver to Yann a double whammy (I nominated another of his works that was moved to Wikilivres), but that is why I am supporting the deletion of this work. ResScholar (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the DJVU file is hosted on Commons, so a discussion needs also to take place there. I don't really understand how the LoC could publish the whole document under fair use, but copyright shenanigans always surprise me... Yann (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
add Commons:File:The_Origins_of_Totalitarianism.djvu, and a started deletion conversation at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Origins of Totalitarianism.djvu (for completeness) — billinghurst sDrewth 10:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As ResScolar says, the copyright was renewed: (Renewal: RE035306), so it is copyrighted for publication+95 = 1951+95 = 2046. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 05:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The DJVU file was deleted on Commons. so this could be deleted now. Yann (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted. ResScholar (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have just discovered that the edition of the work User:Arlen22 added, is indeed copyrighted—but not just the "formatting". The editors Larry and Marion Pierce say they edited prose which was "the worst piece...[they had] ever seen." There is also a secondary issue of the added modern commentary they attached to some of the entries. Regardless, I don't think it's possible to separate the prose cleanup from work itself and present a non-copyrighted piece here at Wikisource.

Since Wikisource doesn't include works that can't be used for reproductions of a commercial nature, I am nominating this work for deletion.

They state: "Volume One was released in December of 1997. The final volume should be released in late July in 1998. You are free to post this material on the internet and print copies for your own use. Otherwise we retain the copyright for all other uses." A cursory search seems to indicate the editors have published this work in book format (I saw a glimpse of something that looked like it on Amazon during my search), so I can't think of a license that would be compatible with Wikisource requirements. ResScholar (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I interpret your comments correctly, you are saying that there is significant modern commentary in the work to which copyright would apply. On that basis of understanding I vote delete, though would be interested in Arlen22's information around the text. Billinghurst (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I understand it, the Pierces also translated and cleaned up the Latin original prose. Even if I'm wrong and it was written in English, it would have been 17th century English, and, according the two editors, was bad prose which would require their creative contribution. I regret nominating this work because of the large amount of formatting done by Arlen22, but publishing it at Wikisource implies the work can be used commercially, even in physical book form, a format which I doubt the Pierces would want competing with their own rendition of the same material as a book available for sale. ResScholar 15:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • delete I have been awaiting any further points to be raised, or a contrary argument. In lieu of further information and perspective, I do not see a case presented to keep the work. :-( — billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Arlen22 responded today and promptly deleted the copyvio tag. I restored it and asked him to respond to the discovery of a copyright notice within two weeks. He can easily google the phrases I quoted from the notice by the editors, if he wants confirmation. ResScholar (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't realize this page existed (guess I haven't been on enough recently). Is there any possible way to keep this on, but put a notice on every page stating that it may only be printed or posted for personal use? Wikisource is a great place to put it, if that were possible. Arlen22 (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for responding. The only way we could do that would be to redefine the scope of Wikisource. As it is, Wikisource has committed to holding works that are copyrighted only if freely redistributable, even if they are not allowed to be modified. If you would like to solicit opinions as to whether Wikisource would benefit from such a redefinition, feel free to bring it up at the Scriptorium.
If this were like some of the cases that come up here, I would have invited you to get a license from the original editors (in this case the Pierces). But I'm afraid in this case, it wouldn't avail us of anything without the aforementioned change in scope. ResScholar (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Several works by Lewis Grassic Gibbon

The following discussion is closed:
Exported to Canadian Wikilivres:Sunset Song, Wikilivres:Cloud Howe, and Wikilivres:Grey Granite with template redirects for no evidence of US publication. Done by myself due to no other closing administrator for long time.--Jusjih (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If w:Lewis Grassic Gibbon is correct, Sunset Song (1932), Cloud Howe (1933), and Grey Granite (1934) seem to have URAA copyright restoration in the USA through 2027, 2028, and 2029 respectively, as the Scottish author died in 1935 and the British copyright for life + 70 years expired in 2005. If so without copyright license in the USA, I propose exporting to Canadian Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would depend on if they were simultaneously published in the U.S. (within 30 days). If so, the URAA would not apply, and normal U.S. renewal rules would apply. But if there was no simultaneous publication, or renewals were made, then yes they would still be under copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cannot remember if there are any exemptions for Canadian political leaders, however, my gut instinct is that there is not, and if that is the case, then this work would be covered by copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Customs of possible copyright violations

ResScholar posted the below on my talk page and, so that I can share my response with all, I thought I would post it and my response here.

Because of particular circumstances of Wikisource, the customs we have on this website don't correspond exactly with the sense of the deletion page notice. Because we have a large backlog of cases to deal with, the prevailing custom of Possible Copyright Violations is to use the copyvio notice as a warning and to attract the possible violator to the Copyvio page.
The copyright violation refers to our website policy of only hosting "free" texts, not necessarily a violation of the law. It is probably not illegal to host them here once warning has been made and they are hidden from view, as the republication would be done by an individual disregarding the warning. In other cases it is probably even legal to post them openly, as we are, in certain specific cases, only making "fair use" of them in an academic type of setting.
Once the possible violator learns about the discussion page, they usually present a defense of their work, and it gets discussed by admins.
More often, what occurs is that an admin takes a work from our backlog, thinks about and presents the work along with reasons for deleting the work, though sometimes with the reasons implied through a sort of understood shorthand if the case is less difficult. This makes the case easier to archive since we don't know ahead of time in what month the case will be decided, and each case or whether one work or a series of similar works, can be understood independently of other cases.
Finally, we generally don't delete works immediately as there are factions on Wikisource who want to host more than "free" texts, and so they sometimes take the opportunity to stretch the "free" definition as far as possible. If we give them time to object, it prevents them from being able to complain later if the results aren't to their liking.
I hope this helps explain some of the behavior you may see at Possible Copyright Violations, and that it soothes your irritation if that is what I am seeing from you.
I personally appreciate the work you have done to find the works you have found that may violate the terms of "what Wikisource includes". The only other delay I should expect, apart from the one I described, is that of notifying the contributors of the removal if they wish to make a defense. ResScholar (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you ResScholar. There is a lot to take in there. The procedure of hiding pieces from view is one I am familiar with. The concept of making "fair use" of copyright-protected pieces is something I am not familiar with.
On this - "More often, what occurs is that an admin takes a work from our backlog, thinks about and presents the work along with reasons for deleting the work, though sometimes with the reasons implied through a sort of understood shorthand if the case is less difficult." I hope this does not mean that the burden is on me (or other editors) to prove that a piece is in breach of copyright? Surely this should be the job of the editor who puts the material up?
Re ":Finally, we generally don't delete works immediately as there are factions on Wikisource who want to host more than "free" texts, and so they sometimes take the opportunity to stretch the "free" definition as far as possible. If we give them time to object, it prevents them from being able to complain later if the results aren't to their liking." My experience, for example, in respect of a good number of pieces that I previously published, was that AdminBillinghurst 'hid them' in the usual way, and then it was left for me to raise their discussion on this page. I have absolutely no problem with that approach. It is entirely reasonable and appropriate. As publisher, the work should be on me to establish the copyright position. In a few cases now, with the help of others, I have now done that. In one or two other cases, I have conceded that material I published is not copyright free and should be hidden or deleted. I am personally following AdminBillinghurst's approach in a number of other pieces where I have now 'hidden them' and am waiting for editors to raise their status on this page if they want them to be 'unhidden'.
Thank you for your encouragement for my work in identifying pieces that are not copyright free and then following the standard approach (like that used by Billinghurst with my own pieces in the past). You mention notifying contributors. I am not sure I understand what you mean by that. I certainly received no notification from AdminBillinghurst about most of the articles I had contributed that he had 'hidden'. Is it a requirement that before I 'hide' a piece and post a 'potential copyright violation' tag etc, that I also leave a message on the related user's talk page to that effect?
This is ResScholar: Allow me to interject briefly. Unless your work was a PD-Manifesto, where a hundred works were hidden simultaneously recently, I am willing to bet that although Billinghurst placed a notice on some of your works, he did not begin a process to have them deleted here at Possible copyright violations. We are especially careful to delay proceedings if the contributor is thought to be active, and likely to return in the near future. Once listed here, however, an effort is usually made to contact the contibutor on their user talk page. ResScholar (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In reply to your interjection - what I said was "AdminBillinghurst 'hid them' in the usual way". I never said he sought to delete them. I do not know if he did or not but expect you are right and beyond hiding them, he probably proposed to take no other action (Billinghurst can presumably clarify what was his intent). Any way, he hid the articles. Thereafter, they were no longer accessible save if you go into the history log of the page and dig them out. As I say I have no problem with what Billinghurst did (and I have started helping out vis-a-vis copyright duties in a similar fashion). The tag he put on my articles reads "The contents of this page may violate Wikisource's copyright policy. The contents have been hidden and are being discussed [although they were not in fact being discussed there....but I agree with Billinghurst's approach that if a discussion is to start, it should be the publisher who starts it...the burden is on them] at Possible copyright violations, where you may add your comments. A contributor has the primary responsibility [the logic of this (in italics) is in fact that is for the contributor to start the copyright discussion] for establishing that a work may be legally included in Wikisource under the terms of its Copyright policy. Other users may make efforts to establish the validity of the text's inclusion, but they are under no obligation to do so. Failure to establish validity may result in the deletion of the text."
Re. "I hope this helps explain some of the behavior you may see at Possible Copyright Violations, and that it soothes your irritation if that is what I am seeing from you." Thanks again ResScholar. I appreicate your thoughtfulness and your taking the time to communicate with me. It is apprecited. Generally, I am very content with the principles (as I currently understand them) concerning how copyright rules should operate on this Website. I respect the law and have no problem with my or other person's pieces being 'hidden' (as many of my pieces were) or removed (as at least one of my pieces - currently still under discussion was). However, I am hoping for a level playing field around here. I have identified a few pieces now where I cannot 'hide' them because technically, only Admins can edit them. Yet these pieces most likely violate copyright and most certainly the burden for establishing copyright should be on the editors who contributed them. In the meantime they should be 'hidden' as my pieces were. If the position is otherwise, whether intended or not, there are two standards being applied.
Thanks again. Formosa (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe the 2006 locked articles are, in fact, part of that ever growing backlog that was mentioned - not the intentional application of a double standard by anyone. In the years that followed, fewer and fewer requests to lock were proposed & granted as moderating and patrolling techniques were refined (eliminating the need for such "locking" I surmise). George Orwell III (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why have the locked articles that Formosa identified as probable copyvio not been tagged and hidden? JeepdaySock (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Outstanding Issues

This is a list of outstanding issues where I have received no response or an inadequate response - I am flagging these here in the hope of focussing attention back on them.

  • #On who is the onus to establish the copyright position?. In this discussion, I have asked Billinghurst why he is applying two sets of copyright rules: One standard for new works and a lower standard for existing works published on this website. Billinghurst has said that the differentiation is justified because old works have been “patrolled”. I asked him to explain on what basis he can say that they have ever been “patrolled”. After all, in many cases they are in clear breach of copyright – hence why are double standards being applied. He has given no response on this point except to say that he will “leave [me] to it.”. This is the most important discussion I have raised here.
  • #Statement by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayamsa – I do not know if this work is an “Edict of Government” either. Carl Lindberg thought it might be but given that Billinghurst has ‘tagged and hidden’ other similar works, I do not know if it is or is not an “Edict of Government”. Can any one answer whether it is or is not an "Edict of Government"?
  • #Pope Benedict XVI's address to China – Whether this work is copyright-ok or not hinges, once again, on whether it is an “Edict of Government”. Billinghurst indicated that it was not but his responses contained contradictions. Can any one answer whether it is or is not an "Edict of Government"?
  • #Modern speeches by members of the British government – I identified these “locked” articles as being in copyright breach. User: JeepdaySock has asked "[w]hy have the locked articles that Formosa identified as probable copyright breaches not been tagged and hidden?" He has received no response whatsoever. The articles have not been "tagged and hidden" or deleted.

Formosa (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edict of Government

  • #Meaning of the term "Edict of Government" – I asked whether for something to be considered an “Edict of Government”, it must have ‘legal effects’ and must be made by a Government (i.e. that a Minister’s statement won’t do). Billinghurst says that these questions have been answered. I disagree and say that I still have no answers to these questions. Can any one decipher what the answer is?
  • #China Ireland mark 30 years of ties – This page was “tagged and hidden” by Billinghurst. I listed it here for discussion. He has not given any reasons for why it is in violation of copyright. Whether it is or is not probably depends on whether it is a “Edict of Government”. Can any one answer whether it is or is not an "Edict of Government"?
The best guidance on the meaning of edicts of government is in the Copyright Compendium, which was pointed out in previous discussions. It says: Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments. So yes, the emphasis is on documents with legal effect. Most of the works you mention there are not edicts of government by that definition, which means the U.S. Copyright Office would deem them copyrightable, as they note explicitly in a later section, and that copyright would need to expire before they can be hosted here. For recent stuff, that would not be the case, and most of the above should be deleted. The Japanese speech is borderline-ish to me, but the rest should be deleted I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Carl – Thanks for that – A review should get under way as to when this “Edicts of Government “ tag is used here on Wiki. A lot of works are probably need to come down. I will start the job. Your explanation was clear to me until you said that the Japanese speech is borderline. How can it be borderline. It is not an ordinance of government etc nor does it have any legal effect. Do you disagree? Thanks. Formosa (talk)

Sundry unsourced unlicensed images

The following discussion is closed:
Moved or deleted per discussion

Someone has today gone through and tagged 15 of our images for speedy deletion as having no source, license or evidence of permission since 2006. I have complied with most of these requests, as many of the images were unused, and/or available on Commons, and/or obviously unlikely to be in the public domain. The following remain to be dealt with

Hesperian 23:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we're safe in assuming that the Trouble on Titan and World of Living Dead images are from the original stories. Plague Ship is in the PD, and that cover was published in 1959, which leads me to believe it's also in the PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two image nominated at Category:Speedy_deletion_requests

The following discussion is closed:
Delete; if shown in the future to be PD, nothing against uploading it. For now, unnecessary. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two long-uploaded image have been nominated for speedy deletion

Not an area in which I have any knowledge. Does anyone have cluefulness in this space? — billinghurst sDrewth 16:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first one is in use on a book where PD-US-not-renewed is claimed. I guess that would probably follow the same logic. The second was used as the cover of a 1983 compilation of Mundy's works, so if that is the original version, it should definitely go. Not sure if it was from earlier or not though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Potentially keep if {{PD-US-no renewal}} is correct, which was added by Prosfilaes and hopefully they can verify. Delete the second, no source information is provided. It would be nice to get these out of the SD cat. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Keep Plague Ship; I added a source from Gutenberg to the text. I suppose we could add the same license to the image. As far as a source, since it is presumably PD, I think listing any source might work, like this one; what do you think? - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any work that is able to be kept should actually be moved to Commons. So really the decision choice should be either move to Commons, or delete. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete TalbotMundy.jpg
Move Plagueship.jpg (in addition to making it their problem, they probably have more people who know about cover art copyrights.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update - I've uploaded Plagueship to commons here; I will remove that from the discussion if you don't mind. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incidentally this relates to #Sundry unsourced unlicensed images above. Hesperian 00:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Title page

The following discussion is closed:
Commons, no action required — billinghurst sDrewth 02:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just uploaded this file:

It's just a title page and contains no real information. Furthermore, the work does not state a copyright, so I assumed it would be ok. Is this permissible? D.s.ronis (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It isn't particularly a question for Wikisource, as you are using the image at Commons. The page would be copyright unless you can demonstrate that it is in the public domain. Accordingly it has been deleted from Commons. If you wish to use it at English Wikipedia, you can look to upload a cut-down version there and follow the guidance at w:Wikipedia:Non-free content (fair use principle) — billinghurst sDrewth 04:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it was just a title page, it probably doesn't have any copyrightable content and is likely OK. Titles and short phrases are not copyrightable, nor is the layout of the text (in the U.S., anyways). But if there was a paragraph of introductory text or something like that, it could be an issue. Since 1989, copyright notices (or claims of copyright) are no longer required. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
Withdrawn - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Book published by Ernest Hemingway in Paris in 1923, includes some (but not all) of the stories & poems from that book: Up in Michigan, Oklahoma & Captives (Google books link) Hemingway died in 1961, French copyright is death+70 year, so this will be under copyright until 2031 and definitely under copyright in 1996. The notes field for this work claims that the URAA doesn't apply to Hemingway because he was a US citizen. Fine if true, but I can't find anything to back that up (Cornell Public Domain Table suggests publication + 95 years at best, which would be 2018). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NB: Three Stories and Ten Poems itself is just a table of contents linking to standalone pages. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I missed that. I withdraw this point as redundant and I will add a little more information to Three Stories and Ten Poems in the talk page.

At this edit (and I revived the deleting edit) there is reference to Help:Licensing_compatibility#Non-derivative. At that page it discussed UK laws, and that they do not allow non-derivative works. Now I wasn't here at that time, however, to me we should be able to host acts and regulations under {{PD-EdictGov}}. Also I haven't dug into the specific links, however, it would seem interesting if one government alone was able to lay copyright to international regulations, unless of course they are local variations of international components. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it falls under PD-EdictGov, then yes, we can host it here. UK laws do not trump US laws, in the United States, which is the law we follow. All Canadian/UK legislation, from whatever era, is fine here. Commons cannot host that type of work, and non-edict items under Crown Copyright also cannot be here though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FINALLY!! Chapter CXXMLVI of All edicts can be a law but not all laws can be edicts released :)

  Keep (or restore in this case). - In addition to Carl's point, this UK legislation is akin to it's U.S. sister Title(s) governing the same practices in the U.S. by the United States Code and/or in the Code of Federal Regulations as ratified by the IMO membership (admittedly not 100% clear if International Maritime Organization is U.N. based or not off the top of my head). George Orwell III (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Off the top of Google search) International Maritime Organization – IMO is the United Nations' specialized agency responsible for improving maritime safety and preventing pollution from ships.