Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2012-04

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:
Keep, no indication of renewal for the stand alone work. {{PD-US-no-renewal}} added to work. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Is this work PD? It has been published in 1953 and isn't this the copyright renewal notice [1]? --Mpaa (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just find out this on w:The_Variable_Man#Copyright_status, so probably this question is already answered. I leave it anyhow here for a final check. (WP is trustworthy but not not always correct :-) ) --Mpaa (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The talk page there points out that the copyright renewal Mpaa refers to is only for the "compilation, additions, and revisions," but not for the original work. So no renewal, then. --Eliyak T·C 05:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
Withdrawn and re-tagged {{PD-SAGov}}.--Jusjih (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What US license does this 2010 South African presidential speech based on [2] have? PD-EdictGov? As the source governmental website does claim copyright when possible with limited non-commercial permission, I propose exporting this work to Canadian Wikilivres, while continuing Wikisource:Scriptorium#Constitutionality of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act copyright restoration that I started on 2011-01-31.--Jusjih (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does it qualify for {{PD-SAGov}} or {{PD-EdictGov}}? Not all "official" speeches are of a legislative, administrative or legal nature. I am unsure of South African situation.--Jusjih (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: previously discussed at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2010-12. I can only speak as to South African copyright law, where it is indisputably public domain as a "speech of a political nature". (The government website's claim of copyright is a general claim and cannot of course override an Act of Parliament.) Whether it would be considered {{PD-EdictGov}} in the US I cannot say. I will also mention what I mentioned at the previous discussion: the State of the Nation Address is given regularly each February and also after a general election. It can be seen as part of the fulfilment of a constitutional mandate that the executive "provide Parliament with full and regular reports". - Htonl (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I was recently made aware that the much regarded Compendium II from the U.S. Copyright Office has been taken down from further public inspection and is undergoing a major overhaul. As we all know, the justification for our use of {{PD-EdictGov}} is largely based on the inter-office guidelines outlined within it. I don't know if this will eventually mean that our rationale for using that license will be rendered moot or not in that yet to be released new edition, but if history is any indicator, I'd try to avoid using it whenever another legitimate route presents itself. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • They only ever had a couple of chapters at that address. The main text is still hosted at I think/hope they are making a pretty big overhaul to deal with electronic publishing, and other modern changes. I thought the site originally said the review may be done by 2013 or 2014 or something, but they no longer have an estimated completion date... probably impossible to know. I doubt things like PD-EdictGov and other well-settled questions would change though; that document is itself based on decades of case law, which does not change. Not really sure a political speech could qualify for PD-EdictGov though, unless there is some legal effect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
<shrug> My original advice stands: I'd try to avoid using it whenever another legitimate route presents itself. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, sure. PD-EdictGov though is based on court rulings dating back to the 1830s, and is pretty much rock-solid. Lots of documentation in this paper. I'm not sure a speech like this would qualify, but I could see taking PD-SAGov (or maybe {{PD-SA-speech}}) as a sort of PD-author, where the author themselves sort of declares something to be PD. The UK has said they consider their Crown Copyright expiration to apply worldwide; we could assume something similar for PD-SAGov. It does seem somewhat silly to delete it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Keep -- The speech could be all animal sounds nevermind political in nature or to some degree; it fulfills a S.A. Constitutional requirement regardless and that is where the focus must be given rather than towards any 'legal effect' (same old proclamation vs. promulgation catch-22). Our State of the Union speech would be excluded under the same conditions & on the same grounds if that nuance wasn't so easily usurped by the fact the speech was a work created by a Federal employee here in the U.S. first. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • We have a precedent at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2007-11#Antonio_Villaraigosa not considering the press release by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, California, USA an "edict of government", while the City of Los Angeles does claim copyright on its official works whenever legally possible. Even if the page could be kept, it should not have been simply named "Antonio Villaraigosa" as the Mayor's name. For the 2010 South African presidential speech, my question is what its copyright status is, to decide if it is to stay here or move to Canadian Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I do not believe the 2007 discussion should be viewed as a precedent for this particular case; the two are fairly dissimilar in my opinion. One issue I've had all along with relying on Compendium II has been the lack of any distinction between the mentioned U.S. non-Federal works (State, local, municipal, etc.) and works created by "true" foreign governments & their sub-divisions. I can accept the Compendiums' rationale that as a matter of fostering good public policy where (U.S.)citizens are unrestricted by any copyright protections when accessing the laws they are expected to know & abide by as a legitimate basis for hosting, but I never understood how or why works by truly foreign governments (like the one in question here) fall under the same category as those State and local works for no copyright protection. There is no basis for U.S. citizens to have unrestricted access to such foreign governmental works, be they legal effect-ish in their respective homelands or not, since U.S. citizens are not subject to them (either as statutory law or otherwise at any level of governance), have no say in the administration-of/representation-in such foreign governments &/or their sub-divisions plus have little to no value as vehicles promoting/affecting sound public policies here at home within the United States or any of its jurisdictions. There is plenty of case-law to support the exclusion from copyright protections for non-Federal U.S. State & local governmental works but I have not seen anything specifically ruling on relevant works created by foreign governments & copyright exclusion/inclusion under U.S. law. As best as I can ascertain, the only justification to exempt these works has literally been the few lines mentioning - for the most part, in passing - the subject matter found within the Compendium(s).

      Given this unavoidable disconnect between the U.S. citizen & any public policy that actually "affects" them taken in relation to works created by foreign governments, et al., I personally don't believe the Compendiums' guidelines carries "the weight" to properly justify anything generally in question here - well, anything beyond the borders of those non-Federal (but still U.S. bound) governments & their sub-divisions that is (i.e. the New York State government may be considered a foreign government in relation to the United States Federal government but New York is still bound by a common public welfare and thus, an all-inclusive drive for sound public policy across the various governmental sub-divisions at every level. This separate yet common interaction allows for the Compendiums' rationale to hold water, imho, and is supported by a well established body of case-law at nearly every level as well. However, New Zealand's government may also be considered a foreign government in relation to the U.S. Federal government but in no way, shape or form should that equate to New Zealand's government being on par with the New York State government; there is no common citizenship nor any unifying public policy in the latter comparison - there is no body of case-law supporting the artificial creation of one or the other to boot).

      I realize I am woefully in the minority in all this and accept the community believes otherwise re: the Compendium so, in conclusion, I vote "keep" on the South African speech based on it meeting the current standard for an Edict of Goverment banner but I still think there must be a more optimal justification out there to host this kind of stuff regardless. I'd think the 2007 press release discussion (if we need to revive it) needs to debate the pros & cons of the public policy perspective in full to merit an Edict of Government banner, but this section's heading is not the place for that. The overall recent trend has been to foster a transition away from nation-based copyright schemes to a more international copyright regime and I worry we are over-dependent on this non-binding inter-office guideline in light of that expected future and the changes it will surely instigate for us in the areas of copyright & hosting. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment: Understanding your points, should we keep the text with {{PD-SAGov}} as an official text of an administrative nature? Were it not because {{PD-SA-speech}} is not always in the public domain in the USA, I would not have even started this section. If this South African presidential speech does qualify for {{PD-SAGov}}, I am willing to withdraw this.--Jusjih (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I believe it meets a Constitutional requirement by the head of state so it is of an "administrative nature" more so than a press conference or floor speech (both of which, however, may still be part of some predesignated administrative duty in some instances, political or not, as well). The caveat is that I am not a citizen or resident of South Africa so my interpretation of SA law is a woefully unqualified one. I can only compare it to the American system and surmise SA intended the same free access to 'works created by officers of the [Federal] government during the course of carrying out their official duties' as we do in the U.S. Of course, I may be totally wrong by that is my view given the evidence at hand. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maya Lin's original competition submission for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial

The following discussion is closed:
Keep, PD published without copyright notice when such was required. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maya Lin's original competition submission for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial uses {{PD-USGov}}. However, this does not seem appropriate, as she was not an employee of the government when she wrote the document. It is possible she later transferred copyright to the government, and the government then released it as public domain (it could also be the first but not the second). However, there is no evidence it's actually public domain. Superm401 (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Submissions to government stuff like that, where it is known they could be made public, are sometimes precluded from copyright -- it may depend on the rules for the submissions, but I think would constitute publication at the very least. A photo of the submission is at -- perhaps that could be considered {{PD-US-no notice}} or rather {{PD-US-1978-89}}. It may be safer to go with that logic. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It could be appropriate under {{PD-US-1978-89}}, if we're sure both that it was published without a copyright notice and that it wasn't registered within 5 years. Superm401 (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was not registered within 5 years -- I checked; Lin has 2-3 registered copyrights but nothing to do with this submission, or even the Vietnam memorial in general. The publication part is more difficult to figure out, but I do find it hard to believe that something voluntarily submitted as a public record would not be considered published -- particularly the winning submission. You'd have to expect many copies would be made during that process. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems from this like it was published on May 1, 1981 or before, so I went ahead and changed the tag to {{PD-US-1978-89}}. Superm401 - Talk 06:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]



The following discussion is closed:
Deleted, with potential copyright violations if there is reasonable doubt to the PD status they must be deleted. In this case we remain unable to show the work does or will continue to meet licensing requirements for WS. Jeepday (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have noticed that some time ago, you deleted Commonwealth of Britain Bill on the assumption that it was a copyright violation. The effect of section 166 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 appears to be that a Bill is only in copyright whilst actually passing through Parliament. If it is not actually in the process of going through Parliament, it appears that you can print it. You do not need to rely on it being an edict of government. So you might like to consider undeleting it since the deletion discussion seems to say that it has been withdrawn and is not therefore copyright (though it will become copyright again if reintroduced).

And see also ss. 166A to 166D. James500 (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it can become copyrighted again it can not be on Wikisource as it can not meet GFDL, which is criteria. JeepdaySock (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's Parliamentary Copyright (which is what that section is), and I don't think it terminates once it's no longer going through Parliament (that would only have the effect of possibly changing which house actually owns the copyright). I believe they are now licensing that type of thing under the Open Government License, which is basically like CC-BY. I still think it should have been kept under that. The "edict of government" thing is U.S. law, which may or may not apply as well (it would certainly apply if the bill becomes law), but that doesn't have to be used as logic. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Parliamentary copyright does terminate once it's no longer going through Parliament; at least as far as I can see that's the effect of clause (5)(b): "Copyright under this section ceases [...] if the Bill does not receive Royal Assent, on the withdrawal or rejection of the Bill or the end of the Session[.]" (followed by a proviso related to the Parliament Acts, but they don't apply here). - Htonl (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Htonl here, AND it states specifically under that section at that time, and at which point the other parts of the act again become active, whereas it does not say that at that point it becomes public domain or no copyright exists, and you would still need to refer to section 165. At this point I do not believe that we have demonstrated that it is public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, clause (7) does say that no copyright can exist: "No other copyright, or right in the nature of copyright, subsists in a Bill after copyright has once subsisted under this section; but without prejudice to the subsequent operation of this section in relation to a Bill which, not having passed in one Session, is reintroduced in a subsequent Session." But the problem, as JeepdaySock has pointed out, is that tricky "subsequent operation" - if the bill is reintroduced it comes back under parliamentary copyright. - Htonl (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have not yet found a clear description of it but this Bill might be licensed under the Open Parliament Licence (which appears to be exactly the same as the Open Government Licence; licence template {{OGL-UK}}). At least, Parliament's Parliamentary Copyright page doesn't list it as an exemption. I believe both the OPL and OGL are Creative Commons compatible. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting, you're right... and as mentioned clause 7 implies that unpassed bills are completely uncopyrighted after the Parliament is finished (the text seems to preclude any sort of copyright from other parts of the act having effect), and passed bills revert to being Crown Copyright instead of Parliamentary Copyright. At any rate, I think the Open Government License is the best way to deal with this kind of thing, as they seem to be using that now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So where does that leave us? I really have no understanding of this but someone just contacted me on IRC about it.--Doug.(talk contribs) 15:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On further review, I have restored the work though I've left the copyvio tag in place pending final resolution. The fact that a work could potentially re-enter copyright status is not a GFDL/CC-BY-SA violation because the work is currently under no copyright (if the arguments above are correct) and thus is public domain. The possibility that it could be removed from the public domain is purely speculative. The application of the Open Government License needs to be clarified as well.--Doug.(talk contribs) 16:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PD status aside, if a bill can be furthered in a legislative body by being (re)introduced, be it amended or not, wouldn't that make it an evolving work and that becomes the reason not to entertain hosting it? I know we host a handful of U.S. bills that also never made it into law, or were superseded by other bills that did, but [if I recall correctly] the consensus was that works in such constant, likely or unknown states of flux (idle being a state of flux here I guess) was of little benefit to, and beyond the scope of, WS.

There just weren't enough people around & willing to go back and (re)check, then add every legislative revision during a plain old mark-up stage forget about across different committees or multiple sessions/sponsors. I don't think much has changed since then so someone across-da-pond really needs to get an official position on what those Open Gov't/Parliament/Crown tags allow for in relation to what works WS can/cannot/should-not host under them. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I consider that legislative bills should be excluded here unless the contents are finalized and fixed, even if dead, thus no longer evolving works, and the copyright licenses are definite and acceptable. What I say is to consider the inclusion and copyright policies. Please do not post works with any reasonable doubts. There are still many much more acceptable official works to post.--Jusjih (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted, very unclear licensing, no clear rational for PD in US given. Jeepday (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This text was deleted then restored. I noticed it didn't have a translation licence and when I tried to work out what that licence would be I hit a wall. This is a 1934 translation, made by an Indian scholar, printed in Lahore, British India (now Pakistan). First, I have no idea which country's laws apply here. Second, the translator died in 1953, so it's still under copyright by British law (1953+70=2023) and Indian law (1953+60=2013) but public domain by Pakistani law (1953+50=2003); however, by the URAA, it may also be copyrighted under United States law (1934+95=2029), unless I've missed something in the history of those laws. So far, I have not found an explanation for the restoration beyond the edit summary "restoring an older version so that links work" (which makes little sense without context). I haven't added the {{copyvio}} tag as I'm very unsure about whether this really is a copyright violation or not and this is apparently a relatively important translation. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The URAA I think says to use the country with the "greatest contacts with the work" when it has been simultaneously published in multiple countries. The author was born in present-day India, may have been living in the UK at the time it was written though traveled a lot, then was published in British India (present-day Pakistan). Oof. Berne Convention would definitely use Pakistan I think (shortest term). I would not use the UK; British India was a colony. The 70 pma extension did not come until recently. I could see it deemed as being simultaneously published in India and Pakistan though. Given the URAA definition... I would lean towards Pakistan. But... while it may be PD in Pakistan and countries which use the rule of the shorter term, I don't see how it is PD in the United States, as the copyright would have been restored I think regardless of which country is used, unless the translation was also published in the U.S. at the time (don't see evidence of that). Interesting that Project Gutenberg has a copy though; they are pretty careful I thought with this kind of thing. And from the en-wiki article, copies have been around the web for some time. It is also on wikilivres. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is basically an attack page. An agent who took advantage of her authors took exception to people more famous publicly calling her on it, and sued over it. I don't see that we have any need to maintain this, as it's not terribly notable that I can see. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do agree that IMNSHO this sort of addition is not noteworthy, and at this stage our guidance on all these legal type works that have not been traditionally published have insufficient guidance on the notability/inclusion aspect. My preference is to be a lot tighter than we do at the moment, though I do note a diversity of opinion through the community. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The document is or should be a referenced source at History of Wikipedia. Also note WS:N is a red link, unlike w:WP:N. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see. Well, the article's referenced to PDFs at the w:Electronic Frontier Foundation, and in any case, this is obviously not the "original complaint", as Wikipedia was included in the "second amended complaint", which was tossed out anyway. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have found the scans for the "Second Amended Complaint" at the EFF and made a new page with the complaint and the order dismissing it against the WMF at Bauer v. Glatzer et al.. I am not sure where the "original complaint" has come from as all mentions of it seem to me mirrors of our own content, while the second one is in several places. I'd say delete it as redundant and unsourced, and we can have it back if a source were ever to be found. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 03:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would caution that so far as I am aware, complaints filed are not public domain documents. There have been a few recent cases where law firms have asserted copyright interests in the text of their own legal filings, against other firms who copied passages for filings in other cases. BD2412 T 16:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On closer inspection this is quite possibly the case. I have no prejudice against a deletion on a copyvio basis (nice to know that lawyers like to sue each other as well as everyone else). However, I think the case is at least of passing relevance to the WMF projects since it is relevant case law for the lack of liability for a website such as Wikipedia (or Wikisource) for actions of its users, so if we could have it, I think we should. Presumably the dismissal falls under {{PD-EdictGov}} and can be kept? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whatever documentation of the case is created by the court itself will indeed be in the public domain. In fact, one anomoly of copyright law that I've noticed in the past is that, if a court quotes lengthy passages of a copyrightable document, the court itself is immune from infringement claims, and at the same time the opinion, including that copyrightable content, enters the public domain. BD2412 T 16:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tend to agree that while the complaints and other material produced by the two sides in a case are public record, and distributing copies as part of documenting the court case would not be copyright violations, they are not "free" in a copyright sense. {{PD-EdictGov}} is about the legally-binding aspects, which would be the rulings. Obviously anything produced by a federal court would be PD-USGov as well, though non-ruling documents produced by state courts may possibly be copyrighted too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
Delete for now, Appears to be copyright until 2019. Jeepday (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From Category:Possible copyright violations,was subject to a closed discsion without a clear decision at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2011-02#Weird_Tales_copyright_renewals_and_other_H._P._Lovecraft_periodical_renewals. Jeepday (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure we ever found a valid renewal for that one, did we? Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't find a specific renewal for that story when I was looking for Weird Tales renewals (in which it was first published) although the issue itself was renewed by the publisher. However, Lovecraft died in 1937 and the publisher-renewal was in 1951. From past discussions, doesn't this mean they lost the right to renew his works? If so, public domain; if not, copyright until 2019. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
No rational or arguments for PD given. Jeepday (talk) 10:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unlicensed work, appears to be an unpublished 1953 work, which would give keep it from PD for 120 Years. Possibly used as a document of the court. Jeepday (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the source? Presuming that it is not the work of a federal government employee. The work of a state govt or county govt rather than the work of an individual that possibly has been released into the public domain? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per w:Lee Harvey Oswald would seem to be "Youth House (NYC, NY)", April/May 1953, (truancy, confinement) it is unclear if this is a government or contracted private organization. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I Want a Wife is copyrighted, as published in 1971. I have added {{copyvio}}, pending this discussion. --Mpaa (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless the Ms. magazine forgot a copyright notice on that issue, yep, it's under copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this pdf at bottom of page 1 it indicates: From Ms. Magazine, 1972. Copyright © 1970 by Judy Syfers. Reprinted by permission. Not a reproduction of the magazine though. --Mpaa (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An obvious   Delete in my opinion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mirror (and most of the rest of Plath's work)

The following discussion is closed:
Delete PD not shown Jeepday (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a poem by Sylvia Plath (1932-1963), who as an American, presumably published in the USA, and presumably (edit: actually there are a lot of posthumous publications, so this could not be true) before her death, so renewal is required. A quick check (Rutgers and Stanford for "Plath", "Sylvia", "The Colossus" (name of collection) and "Collected Poems" (her other big collection)) didn't turn up any records for her work except (Renewal: RE494405) for the poem "Tulips". However, we don't have an author page for Plath, which made me wonder if there has been a discussion about her works' copyright status before, as I would have expected there to be something about her otherwise. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 06:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This work has been added before, and deleted since it violated the license of the Open Directory Project. See archived Scriptorium discussion. Not sure if this affects the original works. Also the Collected Poems were published posthumously by Ted Hughes in '66, so some of those will be right out for quite some time. Colossus was 1960, so renewal in 1988, 1989 or maybe 1990 depending on the rapidity of renewal processing.
More results here, but only a '94 copyright assignment of Colossus, no renewal (or is this implied in the assignment, and if so, isn't it too late?) and a handful of individual renewals for individual poems. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 07:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
Delete PD not shown Jeepday (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Need a check on John Nash Letters to NSA, as John Nash is still alive. This was posted by an IP address, see Talk:John_Nash_Letters_to_NSA.--Mpaa (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment: The best possible scenario for keeping the work(s), in my view, would be a determination where Mr. Nash is found to have been funded or contracted by the Federal government in some way, shape or form, either thru M.I.T. or by RAND, at the time or retroactively. This then could be argued that he was in fact an author of works "made for hire" under the Copyright statutes for the Federal government - which also seems likely since the works are being celebrated publicly for the first time now that they have met the criteria for de-classification under EO 13526 sometime in 2011.

    The NSA website has all the wording meeting to what amounts to a CC 3.0 release for everything they put online. While proper attribution is requested, it is not a mandated caveat to that release. Their notice also clearly states this release applies when no copyright notice is affixed & these works don't carry any so I don't think there is any issue on that point. I'm leaning toward keeping (for now) but not sure if PD-USGov trumps the CC 3.0-like banner in the end here or not. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete: John Nash was a private citizen, not employed by the US government at the time. He hasn't published his letters, so they're life+70.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added {{copyvio}} to article. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: those were uploaded by me a couple of days ago, and it occurred to me today that there might be a problem, because the letters were only published recently (my first thought had been that they were PD because of their age). I left a note at en:User talk:Moonriddengirl asking for advice, but I think it's clear from the content that Nash was writing to the NSA in a private capacity. The letters are of considerable historical interest and there's good fair-use rationales for using them in various ways, but if WS uses similar policy to Commons then I guess they have to be deleted. Sigh. 00:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Richard Connell's "The Most Dangerous Game"

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted Valid Copyright found Jeepday (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe the short story by Richard Connell titled "The Most Dangerous Game" may not be in the public domain, despite being labeled as such in Wikisource.

The story is reprinted in Literature: Forms of Literature, published by Scott, Foresman, and Company (itself © 1997). In the Acknowledgements section, I find this text:

"The Most Dangerous Game" by Richard Connell. Copyright 1924 by Richard Connell. Copyright renewed 1952 by Louise Fox Connell. Reprinted by permission of Brandt & Brandt Literary Agents, Inc.

I'm afraid I'm not as comfortable with copyright law as I would like to be, so I'm not sure of the most appropriate next steps to verify its status.

I have added {{copyvio}}, pending this discussion.

--Chrisfriend (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If that documentation about the renewal is true (renewal by Louis Fox Connell), then yes it is still under copyright until 2020. The 1997 reprint doesn't enter into it, but the renewal sure does. And indeed, I see it was renewed in 1951 (not 1952) here, original registration number B606705, renewal number R73046.   Delete Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Delete as copyvio, with thanks to Carl for doing the research. Angr 11:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indonesian Civil Code

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted Copyright shown. Jeepday (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is in regards to this ticket on OTRS. -- Cirt (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't see the ticket, but if it's the original, which I doubt, as English is not an official language of Indonesia, then it's copyright free in the US. If it's an official translation, I believe it would likewise be copyright-free, but not an unofficial translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the ticket, the translation from Indonesian to English has been made by the private company Penelitian Hukum Indonesia which claims a copyright on the English text. From the company web site:
Penelitian Hukum Indonesia (PHI) is a full-service Indonesian firm established in 1995 providing a broad range of legal database to Indonesian and foreign clients All PHI database are developed with the latest software from NextPage, Inc, Folio® View that gives you the ability to access and search material stored on compact disc.
The translation is obviously not an official legal document and the copyright claim appears to be valid. This has to be deleted. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additions by Merlaysamuel all look copyright violations

The following discussion is closed:
Delete Copyright shown. Jeepday (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are a range of works that are reasonably contemporary, predominantly obituaries and speeches. All look to NOT be in the public domain and therefore not able to be hosted. The closest that may be the work of the President of India, however her website is silent on copyright, and one of my Indian contacts agreed with my suspicions that we could not readily identify that there would be an exemption. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete - I find nothing that indicates any of these qualify for hosting here on en.WS. note additional works, authors and/or categories have been added since this was first listed here in CopyVio. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete - I've just reverted removal of the copyvio template by User: on the first four, which caused me to look at them closely. They are copied from the Hindustani Times and are clear copyvio in my mind. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Drug Themes in Science Fiction

The following discussion is closed:
PD-USGov, This discussion on the copy right status occurred prior to the two works Drug Themes in Science Fiction & Drug Themes in Fiction being created on WS. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I might work on Drug Themes in Science Fiction, a requested text by User:Prosfilaes. I would like to mke sure there is no copyright issue on this, as it is dated 1974. In case it is OK, what is the right copyright tag for upload to Commons and to be cited in WS. Thanks--Mpaa (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks to be {{PD-US-no notice}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per Amazon this 1974 work was "commissioned by the United States government" and we obviously have copy published by the US government in 1975, so I would use {{PD-USGov}} in addition to {{PD-US-no notice}}. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To support the above statement, in the text, it is stated: This volume, part of a Research Issues Series, was prepared for the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) by Documentation Associates, Box 25892, Los Angeles, California, under Contract Number HSM-42-73-222.--Mpaa (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drug Themes in Fiction

Hi. I would like to request the same as above for the following related work: Drug Themes in Fiction. [3]. If this needs a separate discussion for some reason, we might split the dicussion. --Mpaa (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like same logic applies to both works. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The following discussion is closed:
Some Keep, Some Delete.

This is a group of works listed on {{Mouss}}, the come to my attention through Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Empty pages. Appears to be a mix of copyright status issues along with general housekeeping issues. Jeepday (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]