Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2016

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.


(withdrawn, speedy keep, etc)

The following discussion is closed:
Withdrawan kept per Clindberg, and a snowball clause

Translation, British Translator was still alive in 1960. So per life+70 term not expired.

Further concerns will be in a single posting. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD-1923; license is correct. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
Withdrawan kept per Clindberg, and a snowball clause

(Querying Non-Us works/editions).

Non US work, Author was still alive in 1977. So Per a Life+70 term this hasn't expired yet.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also source link given is dead. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PD-1923. License is correct. Source link not needed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
Withdrawn per reasoning given, No additional evidence to suggest it's not PD_AustralliaGov

Potentially still in copyright, per (Newman, Bernard William (1899 - 1965)), ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This appears to satisfy {{PD-AustraliaGov}}? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would depend if the author was writing in an official or personal capacity. If you can confirm it for the foremr I have no objections to the works re-instatment. If personal Australia used to be (life+50), meaning an author death before 1945 is needed for reasons to do with URAA interactions. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] gives the source as a Richard Whitakker, whose Wikipedia entry suggests it might well have been official, but it's not definitive. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File is marked with the BoM as the publisher, and it has pages numbers. Powers of observation. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Newman was apparently an employee of the Bureau of Metereology from 1917 to 1964. Seems likely to be an official work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
Nothing to do here. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per Commons apparently saying PD-UN isn't in fact a free license - Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-UN

This also applies to subpages and the underlying pages used for the Transclusion.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(moved from WS:PDbillinghurst sDrewth 14:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC))Reply[reply]

This work predates "Prior to 17 September 1987" (just!) so would be okay with regard to the situation. I would say that rather than fuss the work, we need to review the overarching, then revisit the works with the licence. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
speedy kept

(Instituting an unofficial policy of querying Non-US works/editions).

UK edition, so by UK term ( life+70) still in copyright.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

published 1916; {{PD-1923}} —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
English Wikisource uses U.S. law exclusively. The UK status would mean the .djvu should be hosted locally as it would not be allowed on Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
speedy kept, 1905 publication

(Instituting an unofficial policy of querying Non-US works/editions).

UK edition, and collabrative work, Per UK rules not out of copyright until last author died. Authors undocumented here or at Commons so Commons license claim may be incorrect, although made in good faith.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{PD-1923}} if nothing else. Not sure which license is currently being claimed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{PD-Old 70}} At Commons which I feel is VERY optomistic. Localise and {{PD-1923}}ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If authors are undocumented, it should be PD-UK-unknown at Commons. Probably been out of UK copyright since the 1950s. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The authors are documented in the front of the work (Just not on Commons), so PD-UK-Unknown isn't applicable, the relevant nor have any relevant dates been added. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though not pertinent here (pre-1923), under UK law this would be a body corporate publication, and who owns particular copyright for the whole or parts of the work, would depend on the contractual obligations in which they wrote the work for the body corporate. As such it would be quite a complex beast to pull apart and possibly not ever able to be determined with 100% accuracy (availability of records, if they ever existed). All that said, remember that UK copyright is a civil law, not a criminal law, so becomes a different basis of law. So, it is less of a collaborative work, and more under contract (similar to DNB), and then depending on the terms of the contracts whether they owned copyright 70-PMD would be an interesting legal resolution though from my limited experience that has been a more recent legal approach than for that time. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The owner of the copyright would be the corporation, but the term of the copyright would be based on the lives of any named authors. ShakespeareFan00 does have a point here -- since each article seems to have their own named author, the copyright to that article would depend on that author's life. This is not a collaborative work, where the copyright on everything is based on the last-suriviving author of all named authors -- if one article is identified as being the work of one author, then the copyright on that article is just based on that one author. So, there could well be a Commons issue for that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
Withdrawn on the basis that whatever the concern, a snowball clause applies

No evidence presented at Commons to confirm OGL status, at best this is an expired Crown work, but that would depend on the meeting notes having been published at some point. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
Published in US prior to 1923, therefore PD. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UK author, but pre 1923 US edition, Illustrator undocumennted... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I understand correctly, works published before 1923 in the US (like this one) are PD in the US and therefore hostable. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
speedy kept, published 1913

(Instituting un-official policy of querying Non-US editions).

Non US Edition, and Masefield was still alive in 1967, so. may nbot be out of copyright given a UK (life+70) term. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but the template we use is {{PD-1923}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our policy does not require the publication pre 1923 to be within the US, as per their legislation. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
speedy kept, pre-1923 publication

Instituting an un-official policy of querying Non-US editions.

Non-US edition, Translator was still alive in 1957, so a UK term hasn't elapsed (life+70) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, pre-1923, so {{PD-1923}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
speedy kept, published 1918

Canadian edition, refereed per the notes on the talk page, if applying life+70 some of the poems will not have expired. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The concern here is the underlying poem copyright, vs the anthology itself. In any event if the scan file isn't already local it should be. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Canadian poems of the great war.djvu appears to be hosted on this project, not on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, {{PD-1923}}. If it was published before 1923, it is public domain in the US, period. It doesn't matter where it was published or when the author died or anything else. Wikisource copyright policy follows US law and thus any works published before 1923 can be hosted on WS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be a lot simpler if Wikisource adopted the Commons policy to be honest. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally find checking for "published before 1923" much simpler than having to research publication history, author biography, and foreign copyright policy for every work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Simpler for users in the US maybe, not for those of us in (Life+70) regions. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the Commons policy often does not help people in countries other than the U.S. and the country of origin, provided that country does not use the rule of the shorter term. Each project will set the rules more based on its target audience, in general. Commons is the widest scope. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Published pre-1923 — billinghurst sDrewth 01:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
speedy kept, published 1910

(instituting a policy of querying Non-US editions)

London edition, Translator was still alive in 1958, Life+70 term NOT expired yet. ShakespeareFan00 (talk)

It still matches {{PD-1923}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wasn't "published" in the US, so using that tag would be misleading. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't matter. {{PD-1923}} specifies "published", not "published in the US". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Published prior to 1923 — billinghurst sDrewth 21:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
speedy kept published 1912

(Instituting policy of querying Non-US editions)

This work is listed as Authors: various, This isn't necessarily sufficient to confirm the status of indvidual works in an anthology. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Published in 1912; {{PD-1923}} —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I encourage you to document the complete status of works (i.e Non US status) included in the anthology, on the Talk Page if needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: I ask that you acquaint yourself with our policy, and stop this problematic behaviour. To this point of time this community hasn't done page bans for editors. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Published pre-1923 — billinghurst sDrewth 01:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
Nothing to do here. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bringing here, per talk page notes (as I can't track down the authors as such), it's a 1908 work though, so at the very least it would be PD-US-1923-abroad, I think, and I've updated the page accordingly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Umm, all authors were dead by 1935 (following the respective links for the judges on the page), and it would normally be licenced as {{PD-1923}} and maybe {{PD-GovEdict}}. I am not seeing your issue here. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Withdrawn. Great :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue I had was with the reporting organisations copyright vs the judges opinons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A published work by editors cannot claim the copyright on another person's literary work. The indication from a 1908 publication of 1908 work is that there is not a copyright implication. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
Keep per below.— Mpaa (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Written in 2012 and no permission stated.— Mpaa (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listed as CC-BY 4.0 on Commons; source link points to this page which confirms CC-BY 4.0.—Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
Kept Books 1 to 3 and exported Books 4 to 15 and both Epilogues to Canadian Wikilivres:War and Peace--Jusjih (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This Louise and Aylmer Maude translation of the famed Leo Tolstoy work may have been copyright-free in the United States for a few years. If its first publication date was in 1928 or 1929 by Oxford University Press, and it wasn't published simultaneously in the United States, it wouldn't have been registered in the U.S. either. But once the URAA took effect in the U.S. (in Dec. 1994), its copyright would have been restored, regardless of whether it was registered. Because the copyright of this work would have been in force in 1996 in Great Britain (the translators died some time after 70 years prior to 1996).

And even if I'm wrong about it not being registered, it wasn't renewed. There is a renewal on some Tolstoy works by those translators, but the renewal specifically points to extraneous material by other authors.

Let's say I'm wrong about the 1928 or 1929 date. The Wikisource author page and the War and Peace work title page says it was translated 1922-23. That would still just allow us to present that portion of the work published before 1923 (at least until 2018).

The earliest occurrence I can find of this translation is in the Oxford University Press translation of The Works of Tolstoy.

Fortunately this appears to be a Gutenberg cut and paste job, and little effort of our contributors will be blighted by removing this translation. ResScholar (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This Google Book says it was published in 1922. But I do see the "1922-23" references out there as well, with three volumes mentioned, but also that the Maudes revised their work in reprintings -- so it may be there is a 1922 and a 1923 version. Or, probably more likely, books 1 and 2 were from 1922, and the last one was from 1923. The URAA did not take effect until Jan 1, 1996 (the same day the UK restored to 70pma; it had previously been PD in the UK as well). The question then is if it was published in the U.S. simultaneously, at least the third volume in 1923. Oxford did have New York offices, but most references seem to just say London. This one mentions both New York and London, though. Hrm. Carl Lindberg (talk)
If no other comment, I am sending Books 4 to 15 and both Epilogues to Canadian Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aylmer and Louise Maude died in 1938/9 respectively. This would make their work copyright free in countries where there's a 70+ rule. This is the case in the source country at least (UK). Would this not apply to US too? unsigned comment by Potmop (talk) 2015-12-26T15:20:28.

In the United States, the copyright normally expires 95 years after the work was first published, subject to some exceptions. The main exception is that the copyright to works published before 1923 already expired at the latest 75 years after publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Comment The Times Literary Supplement (Thursday, March 09, 1922; pg. 156; Issue 1051.) has an article by Maude that states that the translation of War and Peace was currently "in press" for the World Classic Series. Then again (Thursday, November 16, 1922; pg. 741; Issue 1087) in the same publication it says "about to be published" and refers to the first volume. So at best, we can have the first of n volumes, and only if it was published in time for Xmas. If not published concurrently (evidence?) and not renewed, then not worth the effort for one volume of a text not supported by a scan. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
Kept as PD-ineligible, with translation very likely by a Wikipedian cum Wikisourcerer, presumed GFDL as the Wikipedia text was deleted before the switch to CC-BY-SA, just to make things interesting. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 06:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This work was originally brought over as en.WP dumping because it did not belong there. However, it doesn't meet criteria for inclusion here either. It is only published on the web. I don't feel we can treat a html document as it were a documentary source. It also is translation from Italian with an unknown translator (which I am only mentioning in case consensus is "Keep" we will probably need to re-translate as Wikisource translation to be certain of translation copyright issues.) Also the copyright of the original Italian is questionable, but I haven't looked into Vactican copyrights at all (this may not be an issue with research).--BirgitteSB 01:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Can you expand on why this work does not meet Wikisource:WWI#Documentary_sources? Jeepday (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It is based on a website not the actual document. All that I can find the Vatican ever released was an html file. BirgitteSB 12:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • My understanding is that or Holy see is the Vatican equivalent of anything published is essentially published on either site is essentially published by the government. I don’t think we have a requirement dictating addressing publishing media paper or electronic only. Still not seeing what your argument is. Jeepday (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Perhaps so, but the work we currently have up does not meet the following: "The source of these works must be noted in order to allow others to verify that the copy displayed at Wikisource is a faithful reproduction." I don't see such a source given for this work. Thjis might be correctable, but is lacking as the work currently stands. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • The work is July 2005 entry to Wikisource, while WS:WWI is a empty until January 2006. There is a long history of grandfathering minor things like source not entered, especially as the source is indicated in this deletion discussion. I doubt that anyone is seriously suggesting going through and deleting all works where a source is not listed…. I am not vested in the work in question at all, just in the deletion process. No valid rationale is being offered for this deletion. If you hate it and don’t want it to be on Wikisource, then say that, and if a couple others agree we can delete it. But so far, everyone is offering out scope arguments without historical usage and if they were applied across the board would have a significant impact on other works on WS. Jeepday (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought we had found that the Vatican claims a blanket copyright on all "publications" on their websites (here). This would mean that the original text is copyright, regardless of scope. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like we could not show PD, CC or similar. So we will definitely want to take this to WS:CV. Jeepday (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Keep This is a historical document of a notable person (so in scope) and it is specifically not a work of art. You cannot copyright facts. Where registries around the world have claimed copyright to their BMD certificates it has been due to the artwork and design aspects. On an electronic version this simply does not exist, and the source is the closest that you will get to official. The work should be {{PD-ineligible}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I agree with this assessment. You cannot copyright facts InFairness (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move from Wikisource:Proposed deletions JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 19:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @InFairness: according to the deleted revisions on English Wikipedia, this translation was done by User:InFairness, who is still active on English Wikipedia and I'll ping them there also.
    It looks like this is the only death certificate on English Wikisource. While the copyright may not be clear, this is certainly a case where it is extremely unlikely that a copyright case could eventuate.
    billinghurst, do you have any good reading material re BMD copyrights. While normally I would agree that Template:PD-GovEdict is irrelevant for BMD, a death certificate provided by the state about its current head of state (as in this case) seems reasonable use of the principle. It tenders to the public that the head has in fact deceased and the position is now vacant or held by a regent of some sort, and sets into motion many state processes that are predefined in laws, etc. However it is a stretch, I admit. If there is clear PD-ineligibility decision in US case law, that would be a good position to work from. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @John Vandenberg: From my time doing family history the government record offices have been able to put restrictions on the documents with regard to image reproductions for publication as they are all on special paper, eg. HMSO used to own copyright of the accompanying images, and security measures. The information is just information, it is not theirs to restrict, it is usually provided by other than the registry office, and it is not of literary merit. Information is not copyrightable and is be PD-ineligible when it is a single piece. I doubt that there will be case law for this aspect, and the closest that you will get is copyright for databases of information where the intellectual property is the IP of the system with data, not a piece of data. UK's GRO has Reproduction of birth, death and marriage certificates which gives some good information to support such a position. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for drawing my attention, John. Can you give me a link to the revision in question so I can look at it? It's been quite a while! Many thanks, InFairness (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
InFairness, The text here is at , and it came from w:Death_certificate_of_Pope_John_Paul_II (deleted, identical translation) , and all of your English Wikipedia edits were done on 2005-04-05. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, John. It has been so long that I don't specifically remember whether I actually translated or copied, but translations of that nature are certainly within my capabilities. As for the "Notes" section: that really sounds like my writing, and, especially, the kind of thing that I would write and make note of, since my mother had just died in late 2003 from the same basic illness--urosepsis leading to refractory septic shock. I am quite certain that I wrote the "Notes" section, and almost certain I wrote the translation, though I could be wrong. If you can show me how to go to a previous version, I could tell. Or, better: could you tell me if it looks like I wrote the translation? Honestly, it's a simple document, and there are not many ways to translate it, though I feel like this translation is mine.InFairness (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that doesn't go through, I'd be happy to do a translation with no copyright restriction.InFairness (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
Replaced with PD text --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like this is from The Writings of St. Francis of Assisi, translated by Benen Fahy and published in the US in 1964. I found what appears to be a copyright notice here on Google Books snippet view, which would place this in copyright for a while yet. Prosody (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would definitely agree that the version posted is most likely copyrighted. However there are many translated versions not in copyright. For instance, here
  Done   Keep I've replaced the text with a public domain translation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
Kept as PD-Iran--Jusjih (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The text is copied verbatim from [1] as part of an Iranian propaganda drive by Khamenei supporters.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Comment On the one hand: Propaganda isn't a problem per se; it's still a valid document and I created Category:Propaganda a while ago for things like this. On the other hand: the text is definitely taken from the stated website and I can't find any copyright release information. I expect the author intended it to be released but this is another case where they haven't made it explicit. On the gripping hand: {{PD-Iran}} should apply; Iranian copyright is not recognised under US law making any Iranian text automatically PD as far as Wikisource is concerned. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The PD-Iran thing is surprising. Wasn't aware of it.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn't used much. I only found out when I noticed Ali Khamenei already has an author page and another work on the project. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems that the text was first distributed on Twitter (see w:To the Youth in Europe and North America). Distribution on Twitter is either not publication at all, publication in the United States (where Twitter is hosted) or publication in all countries where Twitter is hosted. In either case, {{PD-Iran}} is not applicable. You can only use {{PD-Iran}} if it was first published in Iran (and not published outside Iran within 30 days after publication in Iran). You can't use {{PD-Iran}} for unpublished material. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure if it would count as "distributed" on Twitter, as it is a lot more than 140 characters; although it could have been cut into pieces. The corresponding wikipedia article says "Khamenei released the letter on his official website and promoted by a Twitter account attributed to him". That sounds like it was just a link. If true, the publication would have been on the official website (presumably, but not necessarily, located in Iran). The 30-day re-publication provision would be the main issue. From googling the send sentence, it looks like CNN published on their website the next day (also, the Wikisource page in question was within the 30-day time frame, albeit slightly later on the 15th February). NB: I've amended the template to include this point. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither CNN nor Wikisource would count as publications, as they were done without consent of the author. I think that the law would be interpreted as basically making it unpublished for 30 days from first publication in Iran unless a publication in a Berne Convention country intervened.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough, I misread the document. In that case, based on this fairly obscure bit of copyright law:   Keep - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would distribution on the Internet count as publication in the first place? Under Swedish law, distribution on the Internet doesn't constitute publication as publication is associated with the distribution of copies, whereas Internet distribution works differently. United States law also bases its definition of publication on distribution of copies. If distribution on the Internet isn't publication, then the document may be unpublished. You can only use {{PD-Iran}} for published material. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think distribution on the Internet necessarily counts differently; certainly any case where someone pays money to download a copy would be publication, I believe, and I think releasing something under a CC license would be an offering of copies to people to a group of people for further distribution. However, I do think that there is a case for much Internet writings to be treated as public performance and not publication. The Copyright Office punts on it[] and leaves it up to the person registering copyright. quotes Kernal Records OY v. Moseley as making the US the country of first publication for anything published on the net, basically obliterating PD-Iran, though that article is quite critical of the case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, so this is either unpublished, or something which was published in every country in which the Internet is accessible. In the event that this is unpublished, then it is copyrighted as the United States provides copyright for unpublished works from any country. In the event that this is published, then it is copyrighted in the United States as it was published in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you get down to it, electronic copies are made all the time when accessing works over the Internet. I'm pretty sure it counts as published. As for the "simultaneous publication" thing... that is harder and I don't think the law (or the Berne Convention) really deals with it. I think it was even discussed at a Berne working group with no real resolution, and I think I've seen reference to a couple U.S. court cases, one which decided such works were published simultaneously in all countries in the world (thus qualifying as a U.S. work and requiring the authors to follow the rules of U.S. authors to file a copyright lawsuit), and the other case went the other way. Note that actual distribution is not required for U.S. publication; the simple offer to distribute qualifies. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, you can put a work on the net and file a copyright registration for it as an unpublished work. As long as they aren't taking a stand on it, I'm not comfortable being "pretty sure" about the matter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a fair point -- it may matter in what circumstances it is on the internet (personal home page, or widely-known page, etc.) The Copyright Office does not need to determine publication or not in this situation, so they don't -- if you register something for copyright, you can specify whether it is considered published or not. It has come up in court cases though, so judges have had to rule -- mainly on country of publication, so I don't think that publication itself was in doubt in those cases, given the wide availability. One is the case you mention, and the other (which ruled the opposite way) was Moberg v 33T. this link has references and quotes of both decisions. The Moberg case ruled that it was not simultaneous publication (which avoided the need to determine if it was publication, which they note is not settled law). However, the purpose of a propaganda drive is typically to reach as many people as possible, and I think it would be pretty hard in this case to claim it was unpublished. The Berne Convention states The expression `published works' means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. If the work is available on the Internet and advertised as such, that is probably enough for at least the Berne definition. But true, there probably are circumstances where something is available on the web but still unpublished. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
Kept as PD-US-no renewal--Jusjih (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

H. P. Lovecraft is always rather hairy, copyright-wise, but S. T. Joshi's H. P. Lovecraft and Lovecraft Criticism (1981, ISBN 0-87338-248-X) lists this as being first published in The Shuttered Room and Other Pieces, which has a renewal RE341797, 12Jun87, limited to "NM: new except six prev. pub. titles, The Commonplace book, The Books, The Gods, Dagon, The Strange high house in the mist, and The Outsider." Now, it does say "Author: H. P. Lovecraft, pseud. of August William Derleth." and was renewed by "April Derleth Jacobs & Walden William Derleth (C)" (C standing for children of the author), so the renewal is technically flawed, but ... I don't know the exact law here, and I suspect many judges would let them slide anyway. To call it PD is cutting some pretty thin hairs, I believe.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In that case, it's probably not just The Little Glass Bottle which is affected. There are three other surviving juvenile stories: The Secret Cave, or John Lees Adventure, The Mystery of the Grave-Yard and The Mysterious Ship. They are all on Wikisource, and as far as I can tell, they were all first published in The Shuttered Room and Other Pieces. Pasicles (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are we keeping them as PD-US-no renewal?--Jusjih (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
Kept as PD-US-no-renewal.--Jusjih (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Exported to Canadian Wikilivres:Pellucidar.--Jusjih (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added today, Pellucidar is an Edgar Rice Burroughs novel that was published in 1923. Burroughs died in 1950—only 65 years ago. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What relevance has his death date here? He's an American; about the only thing his death date matters is that anything by him first published after 2002 won't be PD for another 6 years. Pellucidar doesn't seem to have had its copyright renewed, if there was anything copyrightable about the 1923 publication--it was first serialized in 1915.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yaaayyy!! We need more works by this amazing author!! I am, of course, clearly and completely unbiased about this matter. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding his works are physically not a problem: these are readily available; I also have many. But most are copyright-renewed as per Stanford search. Hrishikes (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am reopening the case and leaving it to uninvolved administrator.--Jusjih (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
kept, no consensus to delete — billinghurst sDrewth 07:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has the following license: Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this manual provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies.

Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission notice identical to this one.

Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this manual into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions, except that this permission notice may be stated in a translation approved by the Foundation.

which I expect won't be compatible with CC-BY-SA-3.0. Prosody (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It may not be compatible, but neither is GFDL or many other licenses. That may qualify to be free though -- there is no noncommercial exception, and there is explicit permission for derivative works, with a share-alike type clause. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Keep on the basis of probability that it is free and until some can demonstrate a clear understanding that we should not host with such licensing. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a new version of this document distributed with GAWK that's licensed:
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the Invariant Sections being "GNU General Public License", with the Front-Cover Texts being "A GNU Manual", and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
a. The FSF's Back-Cover Text is: "You have the freedom to copy and modify this GNU manual."
It is not entirely true that the original is a free document; one is not free to change the GNU GPL, though removing it from the document would be fine. It is an ever-changing software manual, possibly better served by someone else. Moreover, we should probably work from the Texinfo file instead an HTML derivative, if we are going to host it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Very strange licence. You can distribute modifications and translations, but there is nothing granting you the right to modify or translate the document, so it's unclear how you would obtain the modifications or translations in the first place. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I think permission to actually modify or translate is implied by those terms. Really, the ability to do that for private use is always covered by fair use -- it's just distributing the result which is really prohibited by law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
withdrawn by proposer

Claimed license at Commons is not correct, BIS isn't necessarily a legislature. Furthermore the site listed as the source at Commons has from reading some other documents on the site, been approached by various "standards" organisations over it's somewhat "liberal" attitude to copyright issues. Unless there is a clear indication that the BIS has released this in a commons compatible manner and there is a DIRECT confirmation of this with an OTRS, this is going to have to be treated as non-free. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further to the above, found on source site - [[2]] - BIS think what the listed source is doing IS copyright viiolation. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is allowed as per Section 52 (1) (q) (iii) of the Indian Copyright Act: the report of any committee, commission, council, board or other like body appointed by the government if such report has been laid on the Table of the Legislature, unless the reproduction or publication of such report is prohibited by the government; This Standard was made by a government-appointed committee; and as per Section 39 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986: Every rule and every regulation made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or regulation or both Houses agree that the rule or regulation should not be made, the rule or regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule or regulation. Accordingly this standard, a statutory regulation by BIS, had to be tabled in the Indian parliament, and therefore it comes under the proviso of Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act, hence template EdictGov-India. The objection of the BIS, as cited by SF, is as per later rules, e.g. Section 11. (1) of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act 2016: No individual shall, without the authorisation of the Bureau, in any manner or form, publish, reproduce or record any Indian Standard or part thereof, or any other publication of the Bureau. The publication was of 2005, accordingly it was made under the 1986 act. Moreover, as the URAA came into force in 1996, so the 1986 act comes under URAA cognizance, and not the 2016 act. Hrishikes (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Withdrawn per reasoning given by uploader at Commons. Can be taken down if there are external objections though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

I imported these from, but since they're published after 1923 I am told they might possibly be copyvio. Is this the case? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are U.S. works, so they would need copyright notices, and if published before 1964, copyright renewals. The first one looks to have no copyright notice, and was published in 1937. It would appear to be {{PD-US-no notice}} and be fine. The second was published in 1926; it has a valid copyright notice. It would have needed to be renewed in 1953 or 1954. If there is no renewal record, it would be {{PD-US-not renewed}}. For books, you can search in the Stanford book renewal database. You can also find links to the renewal volumes directly at UPenn. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perfect, thank you. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The later seem to be by an Australian authour according to the Wiki-link on it. They died in 1970, But it's a New York edition, Was this previously published in Australia? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm - It's not in the NLA catalouge though - [3] ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nationality / residence of the author is not pertinent when the work appears to be first published in the USA. I cannot find evidence of it being published in Australia (Trove search) or in London (Times search) — billinghurst sDrewth 14:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I couldn't find the work in the scans of the renewals for the relevant year. Unless someone finds it, my understanding is it can stay:) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article at Trove (linked from Author talk page) states that he arrived in the US in 1923
In 1923 he went to America, where, as a member of the Sacred Heart Order, he worked for seven years. While there he lec-

tured extensively in many American States.

which would indicate US published, and US laws applying, unless it can be demonstrated that the work was published first in Australia. So apply US law only in this situation IMNSHO. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Withdrawn - Determined as US in disscussion ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
kept; aligning with decision on video itself — billinghurst sDrewth 06:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a news report by Voice of America that is a transcript of a voice report. There was an ogv at Commons that was attached, and it has been deleted as copyright violation as reputedly VOA's work was only reproducible between 1998, and 2013, and that this 2015 work is under copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Delete. I just updated Template:PD-USGov-VOA to show that works after June 2013 may not use it.--Jusjih (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure that 2013 really made any difference in PD-USGov status for VOA. Their website did become more ambiguous though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Keep the video file has been undeleted as per this discussion at Wikikimedia Commons. All other VOA files will be restored as well. Natuur12 (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
kept published without evident licence, nor seen to be renewed — billinghurst sDrewth 12:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Work by Duane Weldon Rimel (1915-1996) and it seems also by Lovecraft. No source, no publication date given, and no evidence that it is in the public domain, though we have evidence that works of Lovecraft are both in and out. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Published 1934 according to Tâl (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] gives its publication history. I can't find a renewal, and the cover/title page shows no sign of a copyright notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
file now local, kept

and File:Agatha Christie - The Secret Adversary (1922).djvu

I've put this to a Deletion request at Commons, because whilst it may well be PD-US, the work concerned certainly isn't PD in the country of origin of the author (who died in 1976).

No objections to it being localised though.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done please label with {{do not move to Commons|expiry=2047}}, and any other required maintenance — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
file now local, kept

and File:Christie - The Mysterious Affair at Styles.djvu.

Whilst this is certainly PD-US (given the date), it's not necessarily PD in the authors origin country ( the United Kingdom.) Agatha Christie died in 1976, hence whilst the file could possibly be hosted locally, it can't be hosted at commons, and a deletion request has been filed.

No objections to a local hosting as with other works of similar status.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done please label with {{do not move to Commons|expiry=2047}}, and any other required maintenance — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:

This was transcribed in good faith, Freud's original would by now be PD-70. The problem here is that this is a New York Edition of a translation by a British author who died in 1967. At the very least my view is that the underlying file cannot be on Commons.

This came up whilst I was checking older contributions for stalled projects. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further to the above, it seems that this edition is a direct match for a 1922 London edition on IA (, which would

based on the lifetime of Translator not be PD outside the US for a few years.

I am saying that this is deleted unless someone is prepared to provide a version with a KNOWN to be clean status. It's a shame but necessary ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd suggest bring it up at Commons; if they want to delete it we can make the file local. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
copyright violation; also deleted at original source of work — billinghurst sDrewth 03:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First published in 1943 (see preface here), translator died in 1973 (see here). I could not get confirmation about the name of the translator. But if the information provided in the header is correct, then this is copyvio. Hrishikes (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In 1996, India was life+60 (as it is now), so no matter who the translator is, as long as they were living at publication, it was in copyright in 1996 and thus is still in copyright in the US until 2039. If the translator is correct, it'll be under copyright in Canada and India, and not suitable for hosting at Wikilivres.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

The license tag at commons is mistaken. It's not PD-70

Page:The Book of the Homeless (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1916).djvu/49- Author is Jean Maurice Eugène Clément Cocteau (1889–1963)

Also - Page:The Book of the Homeless (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1916).djvu/107- Margaret Louisa Woods (1856 - 1945) (expires next year in UK.)

Page:The Book of the Homeless (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1916).djvu/231- Maurice Polydore Marie Bernard Maeterlinck 1862 – 6 May 1949)

Page:The Book of the Homeless (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1916).djvu/259 - André Suarès, born Isaac Félix Suarès[1] (1868, 1948).

It is PD-US-1923 which means it could be hosted locally if someone wants to move it from commons with an updated tag. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The work is PD because it was published in the US in 1916, which is before 1923. It does not need to be moved to local hosting. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It depends on the Commons rules, but it looks like the text cited was not first published in the US. The standard of ever published in the US before 1923 is not the rule generally used.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The early pages of the book state that the material is original. In reading, it sounds like Edith Wharton asked various authors for contributions, so it would seem that all the material had not been previously published. If so, that would make the U.S. the country of origin regardless of the nationality of the author. I do see an edition published in London also in 1916 on Google Books though even there the copyright is claimed by Charles Scribner & Sons, the U.S. publisher. I think PD-US-1923 is the correct license for all of it. PD-Old-70 would apply to lots of the individual works (and the arrangement and translations which sounds like they were done by Wharton), thought not all of them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
commons:Commons:Licensing normally requires free licensing in at least the United States and in the source country of the work, so in case something is freely licensed in the USA but not the source country, just post here as needed, then wait for free licensing in the source country to move to Commons.--Jusjih (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being first published in the U.S makes that the country of origin as well. That appears to be the case with all portions of that work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:

I'd like a second opinion, The "text" of this was clearly donated, (and the uploader has sent a notification to the commons permission queue.). However, the book includes 1 poem and a number of musuem collection images where a clear copyright notification is included.

Given that the intention of the "text's" author was to donate this, and given some recent un-helpfulness from Commons, I am not sure if this particular file (suitably redacted) would be better hosted locally, so as to avoid a situation.

The DR I put up at Commons has been withdrawn, because the Uploader clearly intended the text to be donated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The poem and the copyrighted images should be redacted. Not sure why Commons would delete at that point... Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Delete It's been over a month, and no sign of an up-dated or redacted version. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Withdrawn - Being resolved with uploader, and Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:

Not necessarily US GOV work as claimed at Commons, Churchill died in the Mid 1950's so.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also - Index:Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt - NARA - 194950 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also - Index:Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt - NARA - 194947 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also - Index:Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt - NARA - 194947 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also - Index:Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt - NARA - 194966 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also - Index:Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt - NARA - 194969 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The NARA project uploads were all marked PD-USGov, even though that may not have been the accurate tag. However they were all marked by NARA as "unrestricted", which means they think there are no copyright issues in the U.S. (which is what Wikisource would follow). For Commons... they would be Crown Copyright for sure, so the question is when they were published. Churchill died 1965 but that would have any bearing on the copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should they be brought here from Commons?--Jusjih (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Withdrawn. These are almost certainly Wartime communications (of an official nature), and it can thus be argued they fall under an expired Crown Copyright or under OGL. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
permission verified in OTRS

According to the source of this work[4], "The original work was created by Richard D. Jarrard and remains his intellectual property." The document[5] indicates a 2001 copyright by Mr. Jarrard. So I'm noting this for possible copyright violation. Outlier59 (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The work (on page 1) states that it is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither of the online versions state that it is released from copyright. The uploaded pdf says the author released it. Don't we need a release from "Richard D. Jarrard Dept. of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah"? Outlier59 (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On April 1st, this note was posted to the index talk page: --
"I worked with the author, Richard D. Jarrard, to release the version imported to Wikispaces version under Creative Commons. I mirrored the version at [6] for many years (Note my name in the footer of each page of that website) because the server space provided at the University of Utah was sporadic. Again, this was done with explicit permission of the original author Richard D. Jarrard. Based on this, I request that there is no copyright violation and this issue be closed. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)"Reply[reply]
I don't know if someone other than the copyright holder can release the copyright, so I'm leaving that to be decided here by those who know more about it. Outlier59 (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Richard D. Jarrard Dept. of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah is the author, the copyright owner, and the person who released the version under Creative Commons. The Creative Commons notice appears on the first page, please notice the image at: File:Sm_all_cc.pdf. What seems relevant is that there exists a version properly released under creative commons and it is that version that I imported. Lingering versions without that notice may be interesting, but are not relevant, because no copyrighted version has been imported. How else might this proceed to satisfy your concerns? Is there some obligation to purge all previous versions from all points of issue and use? Perhaps it is best to only point to the on-line version at: and cite this as the original source. Other versions are irrelevant. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A free license is not releasing something from copyright. The copyright still exists -- in fact, that is the only way to enforce the terms of the license. So, the fact that copyright is still claimed is quite natural and expected. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lbeaumont: I found this on Commons today—[7]. They do email confirmations with the copyright holder to confirm that it's OK to publish the work on Commons and Wikisource. They can directly contact Richard D. Jarrard, Dept. of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah, via email. It might take a couple of months to confirm that this is OK to publish here, but I think it's worth a wait to make sure there's no misunderstanding about the authorship and copyright. Since you're his friend, I hope you'll understand this concern about making sure he's not misunderstood. Ask Commons OTRS to confirm, and all should be well. :) Outlier59 (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I began this process. I have sent an email to the copyright holder with a copy to the Commons. It has been assigned [Ticket#: 2016041210012785]. --Lbeaumont (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Richard D. Jarrard, the creator and copyright owner, sent the prescribed email on April 15, 2016. It was assigned Ticket:2016041510015348

Some poems by Ameen Rihani

The following discussion is closed:
Speedily withdrawn with {{Pd/1923|1940}} after getting evidence of dates and licence.--Jusjih (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would anyone please check the US license of An Anodyne, The Battle Eternal, The Comedy Divine, The Screens of Life, The Three Golden Threads, Waves of My Life, What Wisdom Sows? If unsure, Canadian Wikilivres will likely accept them.--Jusjih (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jusjih: Rihani's published poetry seems to be released in a collection "Chant of Mystics" in 1921 [8] and it seems his poetical bursts were published all prior to 1923. [9]. Do you have any evidence that the works are actual copyright violations, rather than just without dates and licence? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just without dates and licence readily known would I ask here. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright check: - Revelations of Divine Love.

The following discussion is closed:
kept, {{PD/1923|1932}} —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the most commonly known modern transaltion of an important theological work:-

The problem is that I've not been able to find a death date for the author.

The original work is from the 13th century, and there are some earlier translations on as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it's published before 1923 the date of death of the author/translator doesn't matter. For what it's worth, Warrack died in 1932. [10]Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On that basis - "Work is PD- Index:" now added, proofread ( minus ads) and is in the process of being validated.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
Kept under OGL3 license —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So Cabinet Manual appears to be a copy paste out of this PDF: On the last page of the PDF, it states that the work is under crown copyright: "© Crown copyright 2011". I was under the impression that, unless explicitly released, crown copyright covered through year of publication + 50 years.

It's not a scan-backed work so there's no source file on the commons/wikisource servers. But the actual text of the PDF seems to have been copy-pasted into enWS on the page linked. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it matters; it's a work of government and hence is PD in the USA and therefore hostable here (see {{PD-GovEdict}}). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... Are you sure? I was under the impression that works of the US Federal Government were explicitly free of copyright as a matter of policy. The same not being true of other countries. Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So would the PDF be allowed to be uploaded to enWS only or could it be uploaded to commons even though it's not free of copyright in its originating country (the UK)? Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works of government "local or foreign" are PD in the USA and can be hosted on enWS. I believe that Commons requires it to be free in its originating country in order to host there. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is licensed under the UK Government's Open Government Licence. See bottom of Cabinet Manual page for details. Kaihsu (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... So it's under copyright, but then explicitly the copyright is waived? So it could be uploaded to Wikimedia servers? Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it is copyright. No, the copyright is not “waived”. The material is licensed using a licence that allows Wikisource to include it here. – Kaihsu (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes, thank you - crown copyright, has a work around with open license. the right license tempate is at the bottom of the work. it is not PD as in the US. please do not say that User:Beleg Tâl it will get us in trouble. see also [11] it is also fair dealing rather than fair use. welcome to international copyright madness. Slowking4RAN's revenge 02:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the contrary, it is public domain in the USA. The relevant legislation 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." [12]Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Umm, except it unlikely to be an edict of government. An edict is more likely to be legislation through a parliament, subsidiary rule passed contingent upon legislation, or executive orders. This is guidance to government that basically sets out conventions, and processes and it otherwise explanatory of "how it is". All that said, it is released with a licence that allows us to host it. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is OGL 3.0 according to here as the default and not otherwise licenced. FWIW we should consider updating and versioning our OGL licences. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irish government copyright

The following discussion is closed:
works of Irish government appear to ha e copyright extinguished 50 years post publication

I'm trying to understand our position relative to some Irish works (namely airplane crash investigation reports because I am a one-trick pony, as they say.) Anyway, I'm interested in this particular report: [13]. (Link is to the Air Accident Investigation Unit website, but not direct to the PDF.) Anyway, the accident happened in 1953, and the report was released 17 June 1953. There is no actual copyright statement within the report itself, but the terms & conditions page says, among other things, "All material on this site is Government copyright unless stated otherwise. Copyright is implied irrespective of whether a copyright symbol or a copyright statement is displayed."

So this seems to imply Government copyright on the report. The Wikipedia page for copyright law of Ireland appears to say in a bit of a convoluted fashion that Government copyright is good for 50 years after the publish date, which means that this report went out of copyright in 2003.

Is this an accurate analysis? I don't want to try uploading the file to Commons without being certain, and I've never worked with this particular government copyright before. (And I'm not sure which copyright tag to use in this case either.) Thanks, Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mukkakukaku: I would suggest that you look at the law of copyright in Ireland and see whether the 50 year release of government docs is accurate. I would suspect that it would be the case based on UK law that has flowed out through Australian, and New Zealand law that crown copyright (or its kin) gets 50 years, however, the devil is in the detail. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On second look, I think that regardless of what the website is claiming, it's in the public domain because it was created "by an officer or employee of the Irish Government or State in the course of his or her duties, created before 1st January 1966" ({{PD-IrishGov}}). I guess I can ask over at Commons like I did with the Australian reports for clarification. Mukkakukaku (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the copyright act says that such documents' copyright expires after 50 years, which means such works created before 1966 are now PD. Looks like the website is incorrect. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The site is accurate in that government copyright applies (rather than something else), it is just quiet in the case of 50 years post publication that is public domain. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A true account of Nayomy Wise

The following discussion is closed:
kept, {{PD-old-US}} —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While A true account of Nayomy Wise was (supposedly) written by a girl born in 1801, it wasn't formally published until 2003. From my understanding, that would put it under copyright. However, it was written down in a "commonplace book" according to wikipedia:

In 2003, Eleanor R. Long-Wilgus wrote Naomi Wise, Creation, Re-Creation and Continuity in an American Ballad Tradition. Her book dissects folk music in general and the "Omie Wise" ballad in particular. Within the book she included a long narrative poem entitled "A true account of Nayomy Wise" written by a young girl, Mary Woody, born in 1801 in North Carolina. The handwritten poem was found in a commonplace book that had been donated by Mrs. Thomas B. Williamson in 1952 to the UCLA Research Library. Excerpted from Omie Wise on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Given that a "commonplace" book isn't actually publication (I think), would this mean that this work is still under the 2003 copyright? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US Works published after 2002 are life+70.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Works of

The following discussion is closed:
speedy kept, source identified with suitable license

These five works (songs)

are uploaded without source, and have been labelled as being creative commons. I see the lyrics at numbers of places though no copyright statement and no source. The band has a myspace page at, though no copyright statement and no lyrics. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The album can be downloaded from which appears to be an official source; the downloaded ZIP file contains MP3 files of the tracks and a License.txt stating that all tracks are released under CC-BY-SA 3.0. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fight Your Evil Side - To Leave A Trace.jpg. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will move them all to subparts of the album, thanks for the find. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
{{PD-US-no-notice}} —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The entity named the same as the author appears to have died in 1981.(, which means the license at Commons may be wrong. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's published in the USA between 1923 and 1964 with no copyright notice which makes it {{PD-no-renewal}} {{PD-US-no-notice}}, and since USA is the country of origin it suffices for Commons as well, though if there's a problem on Commons you can bring it up there. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was not listed as {{PD-no-renewal}} at commons.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The following discussion is closed:
Deleted for missing confirmation from OTRS--Jusjih (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no evidence that this is, in fact, in the public domain. It also doesn't appear to be significant enough to be included on Wikisource. --Jakob (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move from Wikisource:Proposed deletions. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can I provide the evidence for its copyright. If by email then how? Email me the steps at Prathamprakash29 (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The easiest way is to provide a link to the song posted at the school site with it’s copyright notice posted online. Next requires contact with someone who is legally entitled to represent the school and/or the author of the song. Which is most likely to work in your case? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 18:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeepday The principal is having the copyright of the song. The song is not on school website but it is on the school diary as hardcopy.

The principal had sent a the permission to permissions-common. Is it ok, or any other step is required?--Prathamprakash29 (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC) This is the image of school diary with school song ---Reply[reply]

File:School Song in School Diary.jpeg
School Song in School Diary

Please add it.

  • Two issues
  • 1 The permissions sent in 2014050810001396 are sent on behalf of the author, not by the author. While a this can be addressed, the second issue is problematic.
  • 2 Per Wikisource:WWI#Works_created_after_1922: it does not meet inclusion. As it is only published in a school publication it fails Original contributions and as it is only one part of that school publication it fails Excerpts.
  • Jakec had challenged it as not significant or notable, which is not an inclusion criteria at Wikisource, and pointed out the copyright issue. I should have reviewed more before bringing it here. Currently it seems that the copyright issue can be (but has not yet been) addressed. But the work will still fail at least two of the precedent exclusions at WS:WWI. Jeepday (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, Jeepday just tell me what do i need to do, to make the lyrics available on wikisource.--Prathamprakash29 (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Currently it does not look like there is anything you can do. In an effort to not become a w:Vanity press and remain a library, the community has set some standards on what works can be hosted here. This work, does not meet the inclusion criteria. Jakec and Ankry were essentially correct when they questioned the appropriateness of hosting this work on Wikisource. The two "Official" problems I mention above are the technically correct challenges to the work, other then the copyright issue. If you look hard enough you may think you can find a way around these challenges but speaking from experience in working with the community for years, this work is not likely to be hosted on any wikimediafoundation site in your lifetime. Jeepday (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aside on Excerpts

Jeepday, you cited "Excerpts", but is a song really an excerpt, or more of a self-contained unit like in an anthology? What brought this to mind was an early contribution called Elemoont. It was a story serialized in a Russian newspaper and was accepted here. I found the "Excerpts" description at Wikisource:WWI enlightening as to good management of Wikisource resources in its opposition to fragmentation of an author's work, but I also see how that may be taken too far when it excludes bonafide publication of works of those very authors we are trying to protect that might not appear in any other way. For example in a newspaper, a story serialized there may be thought to have more enduring significance than the news articles that surround it, articles which, in the long run, may only carry historical significance rather than a literary one.
Jeepday, since, as you mention, it was only published in a school diary, I don't mean to argue a moot point, but to open up possibilities of the song being published elsewhere as a condition of it being accepted here. For example, why wouldn't a magazine put out by a school district that you see published in some areas be suitable? ResScholar (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ResScholar you are correct; but in those cases the works have received multiple publications. The community has tended to embrace "Excerpts" of popular works that have recieved multiple publications when a copy of the work as a stand alone is not available, but I think they is usually at least an attempt to set up the entire work as an index, even if only one part of the work is validated at the time it is brought onto Wikisource. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Delete OTRS is still in 'received' status, for two years? I dont have access any more, so I cant check what happened. But given the nature of the work, the lack of sheet music, etc, I think this discussion should be concluded and there is only one conclusion possible at this stage. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Works of OCSE

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have a number of works by the OCSE, some paired with UNMIK (UN body), i.e. where OCSE in Kosovo. Looking at the OCSE website they claim the copyright on their works, and where they do any release data/photos it is with a non-derivative licence. That being correct, it would seem that our holding the works may be in violation of copyright.

I am starting this conversation, and as I find further works I will be adding them to the list. Some of these works may be jointly published, and we will need to work out which organisation will hold the copyright. Looking through their publications themselves, they don't mention copyright information, and little really in the way of publication information, so often the publications are of little to no help.

billinghurst sDrewth 04:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This version of Through the Night of Doubt and Sorrow is from The Handbook to the Lutheran Hymnal, 1949, which appears to be still under copyright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the text (or score) any different from the other copies of SBG's translation that we host? If not, then copyright can't be claimed by the Handbook. If it is different, then it possibly is copyright. Hymn books are generally collections of works by many authors and the publishers have to get permission from each copyright holder. The only part of a hymn book that is copyright to its publisher is the special material such as forewords and any commentary written especially for the book. This means that if a hymn is out of copyright from its original publication, it can't be re-copyrighted simply by inclusion in a more modern collection. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's not any different, then why are we hosting it here? I don't see any point in walking the edge of copyright here for a work we already have in multiple other formats.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
Exported all four to Canadian Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The originals are PD-India but not PD-US (published after 1923, author died in 1954). The work Fire Air Water seems to have been added by the translator. Translator not specified for other works, but added here by an admin of bn Wikipedia. The work Banalata Sen (Poem) was translated by the original author, judging from 1st line comparisons of different translations given in the corresponding Wikipedia article, accordingly PD-India. Seems to me that the works are suitable for Wikilivres. Hrishikes (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •   Delete and transfer to Wikilivres. Concur, PD-India, but not PD in the US. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Delete without transferring to Canadian Wikilivres if the source documents of the texts remain unknown.--Jusjih (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Available sources on the net
The first poem is easily available: 1, 2. (tr. original poet)
The 1st + 2nd poems: 3. (tr. original poet)
3rd poem: 4 (translated and uploaded here by S. M. Maniruzzaman).
4th poem (this is not a translation; this sonnet was originally written in English by the poet): available here
Hrishikes (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
Exported to Canadian Wikilivres:The Hog--Jusjih (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikisource:Scriptorium#The Hog. Basically it's a 1947 work first published in the US with a renewal. I don't know that the renewal does cover the stories (it claims it does), but on the face of it, it looks copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds to me like   Delete. Apart from that it is one chapter of a multi-chapter work, that is incomplete, not backed by images, and has had no second proofread. It should be properly labelled for CV discussion, and if it isn't CV, then the other aspects should still come into play for its retention. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The renewal being valid would probably depend on the terms of the contract with Hodgson's estate, but... odds are pretty decent its copyright got renewed, and will last until 2043. I'd say   Delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Delete per above reasons. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A poem by H. P. Lovecraft.

The concern being? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Presumably that there is no licence, no source, and no date of publication. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per here, first published in 1977. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
speedy deleted, original subject to a takedown notice

Pinging translators @L.tak, @FlippyFlink:

See here. It appears that The Diary of Anne Frank is still under copyright. :( --Yair rand (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Delete - Unfortunately, I have to agree. The proposed policy WS:TRANS#Wikisource original translations says "A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki …". Now that the original nl work has been taken down as copyvio, we cannot host this user translation until 2044. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not an option to do otherwise. @Jalexander (WMF): to note. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UO Astronomy 123 Elementary Particles

The following discussion is closed:
deleted as CV,no fair use allowed

The content for UO Astronomy 123 Elementary Particles was taken from . There is no evidence of public licensing of this content. It may be linked to, but not copied. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had already spoken with the contributor, and I was more concerned with the images which were used by the author as fair use, and therefore not able to be hosted here. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
deleted as CC terms were non-commercial — billinghurst sDrewth 00:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source work and license don't match.

Claimed license : Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported

Actual license at file source - Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 (

Needs OTRS if uploaded officially.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File has been deleted by Commons, so we need to review Index: and Page:billinghurst sDrewth 05:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All namespace issues addressed. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted as creative commons terms outside of scope for enWS. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
deleted due to no derivatives component of licence — billinghurst sDrewth 22:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Claimed license:- Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International

License given at source :- "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License." ( Needs OTRS if officially released under less restrictive terms.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree, ND   Deletebillinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sadly agree. Their pages say both "All articles published in this journal are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution license." (linking to /by/, which is "free") and "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. " with ND logo (linking to the /by-nd/ license, which is NOT "free"), and also the HTML includes <meta name="DC.Rights" content=""/>, and IMO their DC metadata should be take as authoritative given the confused messages on their website.
@Calebjbaker:, are you interested in talking to the journal to clarify? If not, sorry your work will be deleted ;-( John Vandenberg (chat) 02:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps another contributor wishes to do this but I do not. Laozi said Work is done and then forgotten, therefore, it lasts forever. calebjbaker (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will presume that it will be the same with the deletion. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Papal encyclicals with copyrighted translations

The following discussion is closed:
all deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many of the papal encyclicals on this site have translations whose translations are almost certainly copyright violation, at least from what I can see. Here's a breakdown:

First, there are a few copied from This website states that "Most of the encyclicals on this site were scanned by CRNET from the 5 volume set, “The Papal Encyclicals 1740-1981” published by Pierian Press," but does not give direct attribution to the translator for each document.

Second, there are many that are copied from I suppose there could be some argument that these are official documents of a foreign government (the Holy See, but not to be confused with Vatican City), but the website does explicitly state "Copyright © Libreria Editrice Vaticana"

Finally, there are some with no translator attribution at all, but based on their formatting I would hazard a guess that these are also from the website of the Holy See:

Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bump. If there are no objections I will delete all of these. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
Source file was deleted at commons, so dependent files deleted here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I brought this here as a courtesy, but the discussion might better be held on Commons. File:Science.Tr1.pdf has a license saying "This work is not an object of copyright in Egypt because it is an official document. Regardless of their source or target language, all official documents are ineligible for protection in Egypt, including laws, regulations, resolutions and decisions, international conventions, court decisions, award of arbitrators and decisions of administrative committees having judicial competence. (Article 141 of Intellectual Property Law 82 of 2002)" All of those examples are akin to {{PD-EdictGov}}; I note particularly it's not just "decisions of administrative committees", but instead those "having judicial competence". Nothing in that list of examples is remotely akin to a textbook.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Prosfilaes, @ShakespeareFan00:, this looks quite similar to another of their uploads, c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mathematics.pdf, which ended in keep/inconclusive ? I am happy either way on this one. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file has been deleted on Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
deleted per discussion, no clear evidence that not in copyright — billinghurst sDrewth 22:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks suspicious. The author's dates are 1913-1958, translation is not attributed. Captain Nemo (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Is it translated? It is in Moon Shadows on the Water, 1934, by Alvero, in English. The 1964 edition gives a copyright notice of 1934 and 1950. I suspect that if it were translated then it's the author's own translation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like the original was in English. It was the author's first publication, in 1934. However... it was published in the Philippines. I think that means it was restored by the URAA, unless there was some aspect of Philippine copyright laws which made it PD there by 1996 and was never retroactively restored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Exec8, @Aries Eroles:, I see it is mentioned briefly at w:tl:Aurelio Alvero. Can you confirm Carl Lindberg's summary above, and that there is no strange copyright exception that might apply to this poem..? John Vandenberg (chat) 09:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted for unclear translator--Jusjih (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This poem by Adolf Hitler is probably in the public domain in the US. However, the translation has been published before; Google Books comes up with The Kentucky Review - Volumes 5-6 - Page 117 (1983) and Hitler: The Path to Power - Page 22 (1989), neither showing enough to establish place of first publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For such a widely available work, and that could have been translated at any point in time. If we can find no mention of translator, maybe we put "not mentioned" for the translator field and move on. Put a note on the talk page about the research undertaken to find publication source, and translator. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's exceedingly unlikely it was translated before 1923, and entirely possible it was translated and first published outside the US or first published inside the US in a post-1963 work with a copyright notice, or possibly an earlier work that was renewed. We don't usually keep works that are probably in copyright in the US because we can't prove they aren't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect this wasnt published until much later than 1916. If it is PD, we can create our own translation. btw, text here : w:tr:Adolf Hitler'in şiirleri, and elsewhere. I didnt find scans. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
Offending PDF and its transcriptions have been deleted.

On Page talk:Typescript copy of the reminiscences of John Caldwell. PRONI, T3541.5.3.pdf/4 @ claims copyright on this file. Similar statements were made on Page:Typescript copy of the reminiscences of John Caldwell. PRONI, T3541.5.3.pdf/4, however they were blanked within 10 minutes by @Dougie3211:, who uploaded the file on 29 May 2015. Certainly the license tag on the Index: is not accurate, however there is no copyright statement on the 8 pages in the file to give guidance as to the real date of the original text. The annotations are clearly modern. My inclination is to delete as a copyvio. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Delete - it's pretty clear that the annotations are copyvio. On the other hand, if the annotations are removed, the rest of the transcription is presumably public domain, and could be added as an unsourced work with a link to wherever the source was pulled from. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removal of the file is required as it is not within scope with its annotations, which would be copyright, though not the original record at PRONI. As Beleg Tâl indicates, the transcription, without annotations, is a historical record and could be kept as the historical record if it is deemed notable against other criteria of historical record. If is retained and we can attribute the transcription to a person then we should do so using {{textinfo}} on the talk page with a link to this discussion, and a note to the source of the transcription that we made. I have not checed the notability component, and am comfortable with one person's making an assessment on the matter. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Delete I even queried the annotations a while back - ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] to be precise. As it's clear the annotations are in copyright, It has to go. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Transcribed pages now marked as copyvio per process. They should probably be speedied. ShakespeareFan00 (talk)

The rest of the text is not 'presumably public domain' this text is CROWN Copyright. unsigned comment by (talk) .

Thusly, Per - if unpublished it won't expire until 2040 at the earliest, Thanks for alerting us to this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, so remove the annotations and mark the rest {{PD-nonUK}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would need new scans, as the current scans are in good faith assumed to possibly be those of the IP address that has severe concerns about the inclusion of the work here. AS it's unpublished CROWN work, you'd also need the permission of the originating body, which at present isn't document, the Public Record Office of Northenr Ireland is an archive, and not necessarily the true source. All told it's better to delete and start again with KNOWN and comprehensively sourced scans. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Transcriptions of PD works are themselves PD, whether the transcriber likes it or no. In the absence of proper scans of the original document, a {{textinfo}} template is sufficient as per billinghurst's comment above. Since the work is PD in the USA (whether or not it is in the UK or Ireland or wherever this was written), we can host it and we don't need the permission of the author who, if I understand correctly, died ~three hundred years ago. The scans, of course, must be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IP who complained seems to think otherwise, and it was their research that uncovered the (unpublished) work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sweat of the brow is not copyrightable. Copyright is an intellectual property right, and that right belongs with the writer (exemptions apply). The IP address complained in general about his work, and that is the transcription with annotations, anything else is a presumption. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course if the IP, is amenable to Open Acesss (CC-BY-SA) , with proper academic attributions, they can contact the OTRS queue with an official version. I doubt they would be favourable to that though, given concerns about tue original works status. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Aside) It would of course be really useful to historical researchers, if unpublished crown works, older than some fixed period (analgous to those considered unpublished, but created after the 1988 Act). were regarded as OGL equivalent, whilst still technically copyright in perpetuity, it would at the least allow use of them in line with best academic practice. Maybe something to ask the WMUK chapter to ask about? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That does sound reasonable. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Despite the amount of work put into the matter, IP can't claim any copyright, even to release it under CC-BY-SA, on text which they only copied from a work which is already out of any copyright in the USA. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They can in respect of the 'transformative' portions, namely the annotations. Although their inclusion may place the work out of scope of what Wikisource typically includes, as another contributor said at the start of the thread. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To note that just because the UK government holds the work, that does not make it Crown copyright as it is not the work of the Crown, and the Crown does not cancel property rights on death, and can only inherit property rights where they are prescribed in a personal estate (a will). The work is either unpublished and any publication is a breach of copyright without permission from the author or their heirs of their intellectual property, or it is in the public domain due the period of time since the person's death. I haven't read the copyright laws applicable during the person's life, nor the 1911 legislation that followed. You can read the pertinent successor application at Copyright Act, 1956 (United Kingdom)/Part 1 and Copyright Act, 1956 (United Kingdom)/Part 6billinghurst sDrewth 00:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I found that we have some commentary of the law prior to 1911 and the proposal after 1911 at Page:The copyright act, 1911, annotated.djvu/20 (not proofread). If we work on the premise that unpublished works are copyright forever, that means ANY unpublished work/letter/... where the writer or their heir does not give right, then there are many records of history that are going to disappear from our pages and other places. We need to be reasonable and practical in our presentation of records and historical works where the author is long deceased. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For someone who died in 1639, I tend to agree. Applying principals of publication to the 1600s can be murky -- how did the government gain possession of the works, and did that amount to publication, etc. I don't think there is any way the original can be considered Crown Copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technically, the annotations are not "transformative" -- they are a separate work with their own copyright. The UK's perpetual copyright on unpublished works was eliminated with the 1988 Act, though given 50 years of protection from 1989 (i.e. until 2040) if not published by that point. Not every type of work had a term based on publication -- I think paintings were based on year of death only, and photographs were based on year of creation -- but I think literary works did. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you remove the annotations your left with a 2 page document that has a copyright that's owned by the CROWN or Crown Copyright - same difference. The documents were transcribed by Edward Thomas Langford and his transcriptions were gifted to James B. Hamilton in 1934, who then gifted the work to the Crown following his death and that's why the document is in PRONI. The original documents are archived in the New York Public Library. The New York Public Library were gifted these documents by the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society in 2007, who were gifted the documents by Edward Thomas Langford's daughter following her death during the twentieth-century. The copyright for the original document is now owned by the New York Public Library and the copyright for the transcribed document is now owned by the CROWN. The original document was written in 1850 not the 1600's and Edward Thomas Langford's book on this subject was published in 1937. unsigned comment by (talk) .

I've put the text itself, with all original text by User: removed, at User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/Caldwell Particulars of history of a North County Irish family. You can see how much there is and what would be kept depending on what the US laws on crown copyright and unpublished materials are. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"owned by the crown" is different than "crown copyright". For the former, the term of copyright is still determined per normal rules; the latter by Crown Copyright terms. If the Crown is gifted a copyright, it does not change into Crown Copyright. I don't think, in the U.S., that transcriptions would get a separate copyright though. The status would solely depend on the copyright of the original text. It sounds like it was by John Caldwell (1769 - 1850) who was born in Ireland but emigrated (actually exiled) to the U.S. around 1800 or so, and lived in the U.S. after that. For the U.S. then... it would depend on the date of publication. How did Langford obtain the documents? If that was by permission of the original heirs, that may have been publication right then. Langford was also American; I see no renewals for any works authored by him in the Stanford book copyright database, so if it was published in 1937, then even if had a copyright notice it would have become PD in 1966 (if it was a book -- or was it an article in another periodical?). It's also a very muddled question as to whether the transfer of the original document would also transfer the copyright -- today that would absolutely not be the case, but it was fuzzier in that era. If it has never been published with explicit permission of the original heirs or copyright holders, then it would be PD as 70pma in the U.S. today. As a U.S. work then, it seems quite doubtful the original is still under copyright. UK laws would not enter into it at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not exactly correct, the US rule is not PD 70pma for works created prior to 1933, rather it's 45 years after the abrogation of common law rights in fixed unpublished works, or 1 January 2003, per the 1976 Act.
If US law applies, mere permission from the heirs would not likely have been publication. The intellectual property inherent in fixed but unpublished works was protected at common law as a fully transferrable property interest until 1978 (for unfixed works it still is). Making the mere transfer a publication would have been contrary to the common law right to assign property. Furthermore, common law cases do not support a private transaction as being "publication" at all, publication generally had to be to the "public" (sometimes an unlimited number of the public).
At the same time, I don't see any basis for deeming publication as 1937. The IP only notes that "Edward Thomas Langford's book on this subject was published in 1937". There is no assertion that the "book on this subject" actually contained the creative work under discussion in any meaningful way under copyright law.--Doug.(talk contribs) 05:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Doug: The US rule for unpublished works is 70pma if they were created before 1978 and not published until 2003 or later. That is why I said if they are still considered unpublished today, they are PD in the US under that rule. (It was 25 years from 1978.) If they were printed without permission, that does not count as publication -- so if no permission from heirs was obtained, they are still "unpublished" and copyright has likely expired. As for publication, it is thornier for sure -- a private transaction would not necessarily do it. "Limited publication" though has often been defined as distribution to a limited number of people, for a limited purpose, and no further rights of distribution. If any of those three tests failed, it was "general publication", which was the type which started the federal copyright clock (and required a copyright notice). I find it rather unlikely they were legally unpublished in the U.S., then legally published in Ireland -- to me it seems most likely they were either 1) legally published a long time ago in the U.S., or 2) (and more likely) never published at all. In either case they would be PD. Lastly, the literary copyright would seem to have been owned by a man who died in 1850. Transcribing it would not create a new copyright, so I don't see what copyright Langford could have owned, and certainly do not see what the Irish government could own. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another argument for deletion: regardless of copyright, this appears to be an excerpt of a larger work (Particulars of history of a North County Irish family), and therefore outside scope. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be an original source document used (and perhaps reproduced) as part of that work -- it is not simply an excerpt by the author of the 1937 work. So it would have a status separate from that 1937 book (which sounds like itself is PD). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is an excerpt of a larger work - Particulars of history of a North County Irish family by Edward T. Langford and published in 1937. unsigned comment by ‪‬ (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  CommentI think it is most likely that the work was created in the United States and first published in Northern Ireland by the government. See my response to Carl Lindberg above for background.

  • Assuming that the transcription by Langford came with authorization to publish, it may have been published after 1934 when the mentioned Hamilton gifted it to some public entity by which it apparently became a public record and made its way into PRONI.
  • Alternatively, Langford may not have gifted the right to publish and PRONI's publication may be unauthorized and therefore not a publication at all under the common law of some as yet undetermined US state, in which case either NYG&BS published it or the copyright protection of the 1976 Act on unpublished works expired on 1 January 2003.
  • There are of course possibilities for intervening publications by Langford or Hamilton but we have no evidence of any.
  • It's also possible that Langford had no authorization to publish, in which case only the heirs of John Caldwell held the common law rights in the work, which would have expired 1 January 2003.

Of these, the last is the least likely and the first (transcriptions gifted with right to publish) seems the most likely. If we assume that Hamilton lived in the UK, then the question arises, what was the status of that work in 1934? It appears that both UK law and common law in the United States would have protected the unpublished work until publication by Northern Ireland as a public record at some date. US protection would have ended on 1 January 2003 if the work was as yet still unpublished. I think it is most likely that the unannotated work was published between 1934 and 2003 and was thus subject to copyright protection in the UK. When did/will that copyright protection expire?--Doug.(talk contribs) 05:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No time soon, the best option is to remove and start again with KNOWN sources, as I've said previously. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2016

All this fuss over what? 1 or 2 pages of a 217 page manuscript. I've transcribed the entire document and annotated it as well. Thank goodness it wasn't put up here or wiki would have tried to take it as well. Clearly wiki is very desperate for material. unsigned comment by (talk) .

Bump - At some point a version of this text+plus the annotations was on Wikisouce (unattributed) here - being the earliest I can find, Originally uploaded by User:Caldwellb ( , later extensively edited by an IP, (who may be the same person), and was present until at least June 2015 when it was put up for deletion seemingly by User: ( ( but there's no evidence in that users contribution history of them opening a Proposed Deletions discussion.

The same content was later uploaded in PDF format by a another user, and it's from the PDF that the disputed transcription was made in good faith.

I am still of the view that as this has a very convoluted history, that the original userspace version (which I strongly suspect is where the contested PDF was generated from at some point) is unattributed, and on the basis of the later concerns raised, that this should be deleted, and any future attempt on this made from a KNOWN (and thusly attributed version.). (This is despite the disclaimer that says contributors agree that contributions are made irrevocably under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL, which BOTH the inital uploader User:Caldwellb and the IP editor should have had a chance to read when saving their edits.)

Does Wikisource have checkusers? I ask because it would be nice to rule out the possibility that certain users (and the IP) are editing from similar IP's and locations. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done . The PDF file, the Index page, and the page transcriptions have been deleted. Caldwell's 1850 text itself, minus the annotations, is still hosted at Particulars of history of a North County Irish family. If there is any contention as to the text still hosted, please open a new discussion at WS:PD.

Two possible copyvios

The following discussion is closed.

I present two deletion candidates for consideration, by pointing to the discussion topics where they were last noted: (above)

--Elvey (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
deleted, copyright violation — billinghurst sDrewth 06:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like this was first registered for US copyright on 16 February 1937 and properly renewed. It was published in the UK in 1937, don't know exactly date. I would think it reasonably likely that it was published in the UK first and in the US within 30 days. Prosody (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it wasn't published within 30 days, then the URAA should have restored its copyright. I can't see any good arguments for this being out of copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
deleted by separate process

No license at Commons, at best this is a State Gov document, Not Federal. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Brief Note on Affeton..

The following discussion is closed:
deleted as not in the public domain — billinghurst sDrewth 06:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Brief Note on Affeton - this is a 20th century document, by the looks of it, but no indication given of the US publication date (if lawfully published at all in the US) or the date of death of the author. There doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that it is out of copyright in the US. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Delete Seems to be from this webpage, and I would agree that there is no evidence of it being published prior to 1923. I haven't searched for dates of life for author. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Delete Author is John Humphrey Albert Stucley, 1916-1988. I doubt he wrote it before his 7th birthday :p —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
deleted, handled elsewhere

Wrong license at commons, the author died in 1955 so this is NOT PD-70 as claimed at commons.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's sort of awkward to have this conversation at two places at once. Issues of correcting a license at Commons need to be dealt with at Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
work deleted for second time

We had a discussion at Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2013-02#Small_Town (result delete) and subsequent the pages have been transcribed. Prior to just deleting, I am waving this back in from t of the community for their opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I can tell, the discussion therein came to the correct conclusion; TSR would have had the right to renew the copyright on the magazine and its contents as proprietor of copyright in a composite work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A letter written by 6 members of the Romanian community to the president in 1989 (fax date). I see nothing that puts the work into the public domain. [14]billinghurst sDrewth 06:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Delete: agree. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted; translation under copyright until 2043. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Living translator. No license provided. Hrishikes (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Delete: source website gives no indication of free license. per Carl Lindberg's comments below. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Comment What date was the translation published? (aside from the web) I assume that the 1920 date in the story's header is meant to be the date of the original story, and not of the translation? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a good point. I had assumed (as cited on Poseidon (short story)) that Jack Letourneau, the owner of the website, was the translator, and that the website was therefore the original publication. However, looking again without this assumption, I see that it was in fact translated by Tania and James Stern[15] and was published as early as 1947.[16]Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That Tania and James Stern version is a bit different -- so that is not the translation we have. But the 1947 version looks to be exactly the one. I did find another listing on here, also published in 1947, which says it was translated by Clement Greenberg (died 1994). It appears that volume was renewed in 1974. Unless it was first published in a previous year (and it sounds like Schocken only started its U.S. business in 1945) and not renewed, it would seem to be under copyright until 2043.   Delete Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good researching. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
Deleted--Jusjih (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation published in India in 1950 by the author's religious order (see here). Was not PD-India on URAA date. Still not PD in source country as the translator was alive in 1975 (see here). Hrishikes (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just added the CV template to the page. Note that it would be part of best practice to label the wor so that the author is aware, and others who have an interest can see that issues have been raised. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Delete, I see nothing to contradict your conclusion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
CC release of the journal article doesnt cover this image, and it should be removed from the PDF. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Used here: Page:Sm_all_cc.pdf/100.

I submit that

(a) the author likely didn't get permission to use this Gary Larson cartoon in the work — either they didn't think about it at all, or they rather dubiously regarded it as a fair use;
(b) regardless of permission, the release of the work under a Creative Commons license cannot possibly serve to release the embedded cartoon under that license.

Delete. Ping: @Lbeaumont: Hesperian 05:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have raised this issue with the author of the work, Richard Jarrard and will let you know his response. Thanks for your patience in this. --Lbeaumont (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I received this reply from Richard Jarrard: "It's been many years, and it is possible, but I doubt, that I received permission to publish the Gary Larson cartoons. Most of the publishers from whom I requested permission to use their quotes did not reply (none refused), and this result was a significant factor in my decision to go online rather than with Columbia University Press. Delete them; humor is valuable but not essential to the point of this book."
I recommend I unlink the Gary Larson materials from text (one cartoon begins each chapter) and mark the cartoon images files for deletion. Do I also have to obscure the images in the pdf image of the corresponding page? (I can do this with photoshop if needed)? Thanks --Lbeaumont (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should replace it with a missing image label of some sort, with {{user annotation}} in a group ref to explain why no image. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
deleted (by separate review)

NISO is seemingly not a US Gov entity, and this document doesn't have any confirmation it's Creative Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps someone got NISO confused with NIST, which is a US gov entity. The document itself declares copyright, and grants permission to copy "for noncommercial purposes only". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Freedom Charter is a 1955 South African work, but it seems that it's another publicity piece that was never put under a free license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Delete Agree; there's no indication of it being freely licensed. South African law apparently covers works until 50 years after the death of the last author; URAA takes care of the rest. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
speedied —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on an examination of the linked Wikipedia article, I'm not convinced that the copyright license at Commons is correct. This item is not necessarily a Crown work as claimed, and seems to be an a private effort by an individual who died in 1981. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has been deleted (by me) at Commons as an apparent copyvio. The British Free Corps was a unit of the Waffen SS, so Crown Copyright is a ludicrous claim. German law would consider it in copyright unless we could show the author died before 1946. Since it looks like a modern forgery, that is quite unlikely. Revent (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
deleted, as requested by contributor, as CV. Existing translation identified as being copyright until 2039.

Text matches with the translation by w:Ralph Manheim, see second paragraph of My Struggle/In The House Of My Parents quoted here. The work was published in 1992 by Pimlico, London (see here) and republished in 1998 by Houghton Mifflin, Boston (see here). Originally published by Houghton Mifflin in 1943 as per Wikipedia article on the translator. Translator died in 1992. Hrishikes (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's Renewal R509011, so it will be in copyright until 2039.
  Comment Only a WS translation should be accepted without clear evidence of translator and public domain status. No earlier translation is known than Manheim version, so it seems unlikely that another version will appear in the public domain prior to 2039. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Protected both the pages "My Struggle" and "Mein Kampf" and added a note that refers users to this page. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
already deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Underlying file, determined to be copyvio at Commons. Request for deletion of Index and associated page namespace efforts by myself. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done It has already been deleted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Index has been, Page namespace efforts have NOT been deleted.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
speedy deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of the authors/editors was seemmingly still alive in 1993, so I am asking for a second opinion on whether this can be included here. (Publication date is 1934.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it should be deleted on Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Virginia Woolf Incorrect Copyright Info

The following discussion is closed:
Please check each work, and if unacceptable here, Canadian Wikilivres may take some works.--Jusjih (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After going through much of this month's proofread, I decided to hop on over to Virginia Woolf's author page. I noticed that many of the books are marked "Under US copyright until X" by the {{copyright until}} template. However, this isn't correct for the few I checked. While true that works made before 1923 are in the public domain in the US, this does not mean that works after 1923 are not. All of her works published before 1964 are now in the public domain. I searched the US Copyright Office to check some, such as Mrs. Dalloway and A Room of One's Own. There are recent versions under copyright, but the originals were not renewed and do not fall under the post-1964 automatic renewal umbrella. The recent versions are under copyright because of new material (forewords, etc.) and edits to the original material, but the original text does not actually fall under the banner of copyright.

"The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. Protection does not extend to any preexisting material, that is, previously published or previously registered works or works in the public domain or owned by a third party.

As a result, it is not possible to extend the length of protection for a copyrighted work by creating a derivative work. A work that has fallen into the public domain, that is, a work that is no longer protected by copyright, is also an underlying “work” from which derivative authorship may be added, but the copyright in the derivative work will not extend to the public domain material, and the use of the public domain material in a derivative work will not prevent anyone else from using the same public domain work for another derivative work."

United States Copyright Office (October 2013). "Copyright in Derivative Works and Compilations". 

Also see the Commons page which has a good summary of why the original text is now public domain.

Of note, the 70 year after death rule would apply for Britain, which means the copyright on the original works expired in 2011. I do not know about renewals on these works for Britain, but I'm referring to US copyright overall in this post. It seems that we're blocking ourselves from working on some great texts. As it stands, I haven't changed any of the page as I wanted to point this out first. If I have made a mistake, please feel free to point it out. The Haz talk 18:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've looked through them and all the renewals seem to be valid. I can't tell if they were initially registered within the required thirty days but the years match. Without further information, I would say they are all under copyright, although the specific licence is not correct (they are under copyright due to renewal, not the 1923 cut-off). I might be wrong. I've added the renewal numbers for the moment if anyone wants to double check. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I just looked at the renewal you gave for Mrs. Dalloway. It was in 1953 which means it would have been valid for 47 years (until 2000). I'll add that the new, longer copyright term (95y total) does not apply as it was published before 1964, so the term still remains 75y if the renewal was filed in the 28th year which it was. Circular 15 The Haz talk 19:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
URAA renewal complicates matters, and as they were UK published works, unless we can demonstrate that they are published within 30 days in the US, then they will remain foreign works, and pretty much out of bounds until 95 years post-publication`. How existing renewals and and URAA are going to interplay is just another nightmare, and just going to be too hard for base amateurs like us to resolve. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
<<edit conflict>> Virginia Woolf was an English writer. Thanks to w:URAA, all of her post-1922 books are copyrighted in the United States for 95 years from publication regardless of whether they were renewed or not, since they were copyrighted in the UK in 1996.
You also seem to ask whether the books were renewed in the UK or not. The UK abolished renewals quite a long time ago (in the w:Copyright Act 1842 I think), and renewals have not been needed in the UK since then. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the copyright office, URAA doesn't apply here because they were already registered in the United States. If they had missed the original renewal, the URAA wouldn't have allowed them to renew because it was already registered under US copyright law. My original issue was that they had 75 year terms (even if URAA), not 95. However, while those recent publications discussed the 75 year total term for anything before 1964, the next part states that all works published after 1922 and renewed before 1978 automatically had the renewal extended 20 years to be 95 years total. This summary of a part of the 1998 act has cleared it up for me:

Copyrights already in their second term on January 1, 1978: The duration of the copyright term has automatically been prolonged to last for a total of 95 years. No further renewal registration is necessary.

Thanks for the info, everyone! The Haz talk 00:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Um, but URAA does restore the copyright to non-US works which weren't renewed, even if they were registered for copyright in the US. This does at least happen if the US registration was more than 30 days after publication in the UK. I'm not sure what happens if the US registration predates that, though, as some parts of US law consider registration to count as "publication". --Stefan2 (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But for English-language books, the manufacturing clause meant that they had to be published in the US with 30 days to gain copyright (a form of protectionist tariff). So either those books were first published (within 30 days) in the US, or the original registrations were improper.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another clarification (not that you were really 'wrong' @Prosfilaes:... the manufacturing clause wasn't so much something that needed to to complied with to 'gain' protection, at least later on, in that an English language work published in a 'treaty-partner' nation would have it's copyright recognized in the United States, but more a matter of 'losing' US copyright protection if you then published copies in the US that were not manufactured domestically. It was not legal to republish a work in the US in disregard of the foreign copyright if the source nation was a treaty partner... the foreign work did indeed have a form of US copyright protection, not specifically under the 1891 law (which was the source of the manufacturing clause) but through later 'bilateral agreements' or treaties such as the Buenos Aires Convention. Revent (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to clarify here, the specific text of 17 USC 104a (h)(6)(C) defines a 'restored work'...
(C) is in the public domain in the United States due to—...
(i) noncompliance with formalities imposed at any time by United States copyright law, including failure of renewal... (emphasis added)
A 'non-US' work that was at some point registered in the US, but not renewed, can indeed have it's copyright restored under the URAA. In order for the work to lose protection due to non-renewal, it needs to be established that the foreign-source work was 'simultaneously published' in the United States (or, technically, a 'treaty party' in the original publication was in a non-treaty-party country). Later US 'publication', either through actual publication or registration does not change the source nation of the work. Revent (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It seems like each work needs to be individually listed and reviewed for copyright status. Jeepday (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed:
Kept.--Jusjih (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any justification for this law except Edict-gov? If not I'm inclined to issue an informal writ of mandamus, a cease and desist order or an estoppel to prevent further work on placing this law on Wikisource. ResScholar (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you expand on why you think we should not be hosting it? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the Edict-gov license is the only license applicable, and that license is being cast into doubt by the discussions above, I think it would be better to stop progress on the work until a decision on the license's use has solidified. ResScholar (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I agree about the "Edict-gov" license pitfall completely here, one of the points behind nullifying it was to investigate where the nation-in-question's copyright law actually stands on any given type of government work, suspected or otherwise, and build from there. If its PD/released by the attributed government by law there, than its OK to host here.

So if one can believe what is found locally under Article 10, the "lack of applicable license" is more a matter of not having the valid & proper licesnse banner already in place more so than being disqualified by [inter]national copyright law(s) or worse, falling under the last resort of scoundrels - the Edict of Gov't "standard".

Of course, somebody fluent should double check the copyright law we're hosting to verify it is indeed valid as well as in force today. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear all, here is weblink;jsessionid=C1C7AB1FABB574BD5805320F15BCEACC?id=94745&schema=main from which I downloaded contents. "Antimonopoly Committee" is the part of government of Ukraine. So, it is PD, I thought. HappyMidnight (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You still need to "tag" any work added to en.WS reflecting that info relating to copyright status - the matching banner did not exist for Ukraine is all.
I started one based on Commons' version - see {{PD-UA-exempt}}. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your work and advice. HappyMidnight (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Law of the People's Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Contractual Joint Ventures

The following discussion is closed:
Kept [17]--Jusjih (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template found. ResScholar (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitration Act 1996

The following discussion is closed:
Kept.--Jusjih (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tagged a template right now. HappyMidnight (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turkish civil Code

The following discussion is closed:
Deleted for uncertain copyright translation [18] --Jusjih (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The following discussion is closed:
Kept [19] but better copyright licenses have yet to be made.--Jusjih (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protection of Competition in Albania

The following discussion is closed:
Kept as Albanian legal text and the WIPO translations are properly licensed, but new tags are needed.--Jusjih (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Law On Protection Of Competition in the Republic of Macedonia

The following discussion is closed:
Kept as commons:Template:PD-Macedonia-exempt--Jusjih (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block Exemption Communiqué on Vertical Agreements, Amended by the Competition Board Communiqués No. 2003/3 and 2007/2 of Turkey

The following discussion is closed:
Kept as Turkish legal text and WIPO translation are properly licensed.--Jusjih (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of the preceding works you added have license templates and are also subject to removal. ResScholar (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am asking the contributor of the preceding five laws from non-English speaking countries about sources and licenses of the translations. If still no answer, delete them as translation copyvios.--Jusjih (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
Exported to Canadian Wikilivres:Resignation letter of Jogendra Nath Mandal as expired Pakistani governmental copyright--Jusjih (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This work is neither PD-US nor PD-Pakistan, as claimed in the license. Author died in 1968 as per Wikipedia article on him, 50 years not yet over. The work is of 1950. Hrishikes (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would seem to be PD-Pakistan as a governmental work more than 50 years from publication. That would probably mean it technically qualified for the URAA, and thus was restored in the US. I'm not sure what the attitude is on wikisource towards governmental works which have a special term in their own country which has expired -- in a way, that is basically PD-author (the author placing their works in the public domain). We have gotten confirmation from the UK and Canada I think that they consider Crown Copyright expiration to apply worldwide, but I don't think we have gotten any explicit confirmation from Pakistan. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: The author was a government minister no doubt, but does a resignation qualify as government work or is it purely personal? After all, people resign from the government, not on behalf of it. Hrishikes (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was written in his capacity as an employee, not personal to me. He would still be an employee until the resignation was accepted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg, @John Vandenberg: A work authored/published by the government is not necessarily copyright-free. Copyright laws of both India and Pakistan were derived from that in vogue in British India (Index:Indian Copyright Act 1914.djvu), so the principles are nearly same. In case of India, certain types of govt papers (court papers, acts/papers presented before the parliament, items published in the Gazette of India etc.) have a release under Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act (more or less equivalent to a CC license). Therefore, under the same principle, if the minister's resignation was presented before the Pakistani legislature, then it can be considered copyright-free, otherwise not. Then copyright would expire after due term as defined under the law. Hrishikes (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tabling in parliament / publishing in The Gazette, does not change its copyright status. It does make it a 'public record', which isnt the same as public domain in regards to copyright. Copyright exists from the moment ink hits the paper, if it was creative as is definitely the case here. i.e. long before it is tabled/published. If this was a formal letter regarding his governmental activities, or brief note tendering his resignation, it could be covered by his role. But it isnt his duty as minister to write this letter as he has done it here. He clearly wrote this whilst candles burnt late at night, as a personal act of creative writing, perhaps in the interests of his country, but not in his job description, and unlikely solely whilst on the clock. I'd be very keen to know more about the circumstances of the letter, its first public appearance, etc., as it might sway me. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@John Vandenberg: I think I was not able to explain my point properly. The letter is definitely not copyright-free IMO, that's why I had proposed this discussion. My point above is that, if it was tabled before the legislature, then its presence in Wikisource would not be deemed as an "infringement of copyright" as per principle similar to Section 52 of Indian Copyright Act. PD-EdictGov-India template of Commons is based on this section, and Pakistan can be supposed to have a similar provision. (although that should be looked into). For background of the resignation, see here and here. Hrishikes (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hrishikes: Section 52 of the Indian Copyright law does give some rights to still-under-copyright government works, yes. However the definition of "government work" in the current Indian Copyright Law is in section 2, which is similar to the wording in the older law. For any of those works, copyright now lasts 60 years from publication per section 28 (India extended from 50 to 60 in the 1990s; Pakistan did not.) The 1914 Indian copyright law was basically an application of the UK Copyright Act 1911 to India, with only minor changes. In that law, Crown Copyright was defined as any work prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to His Majesty, and in such case shall continue for a period of fifty years from the date of the first publication of the work. So yes, simply by being published by the government, even if privately authored, it would turn into Crown Copyright, and as such has a different copyright term. Crown Copyright was very aggressive in that manner -- and it got even more aggressive in the UK Copyright Act 1955; it was not until the Copyright Act 1988 that the scope was reduced to employees in the course of their duties (closer to the U.S. definition). So, prior to that, many works became Crown Copyright. I expect the same would be true for Pakistan and government works, as it kept the same wording in its law. India still has it too, in section 2. Section 52 is only about rights you have for works still under government copyright; it has no relevance for works where the government copyright has expired. I am assuming the copyright of this expired 50 years after it was published, not that Pakistani government works are inherently free. In 1950, I think the 1911 UK act would have basically been in force in both countries, so those definitions would have ruled at the time, even if later laws softened them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed:
Exported to Canadian Wikilivres:Again The Ringer but some templates are missing there--Jusjih (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Akme: says that he has been told that the work was published in 1929, though a scan is hosted at, and they ask that it be deleted. We should confirm that the work was of that date, and that it had the requisite components to be kept copyright to this day. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per Wikipedia and PG Australia (, the date is 1929: though the book does not mention the date anywhere. The Gaunt Stranger was published in 1925, edited and re-published as The Ringer in 1926. Ironically, the book is out of copyright in UK (1932 + 70 yrs) – Akme (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That it was published in 1929 neither rules it in or out of copyright, it will be the circumstances of its publishing that are pertinent for its US copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A 1929 publication date for a British work by an author who died after 1925 is pretty much a guarantee of being in copyright. Unless someone has some specific knowledge otherwise, it's not a question to spend too much time over IMO.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For a popular (trans-Atlantic) author within a series of books, it is quite possible that there was simultaneous publishing on both sides of the Atlantic, and the book displayed has no compliance with copyright. I would agree that it is less likely to be salvaged, however, a simple check of NYT for publishing details, and a check of the renewal db would be worthwhile in these circumstances, especially as it is still up at these other sites. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Gutenberg-Australia link says the US title is The Ringer Returns; there is a renewal record on that -- registration number A34563 on January 16, 1931, and a renewal R208024 on January 22, 1958 done by one of his children. If that was the initial US publication then it was not simultaneously published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia (on Edgar Wallace) and Gutenberg Australia ( both give the date as 1929. The Gaunt Stranger was published in 1925, edited and re-published in 1926 as The Ringer. Ironically, unless I am wrong, it’s no longer copyright in UK (Life (1932) + 70 yrs) -Akme (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Renewal: R208024) may not be the only one relevant. Strange that The Ringer doesnt have its own Wikipedia article. It appears] some of these stories were first published in US magazines, like w:Detective Story Magazine, which also have renewals. Anyway, looks like it is suitable for Wikilivres, and not here. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed: