Wikisource

Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2024

< Wikisource:Copyright discussions‎ | Archives
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.

Index:OASIS Summary of Mobile-assisted language learning - A Duolingo case study.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as the file had been deleted in Commons as a copyvio.

While the main article is not free, the summary is also not free (the license is, as is stated, “NC” limited). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Delete, even something as mundane as a summary of another work is default copyrighted, which is something editors should keep in mind. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:Review of the state of methodological trends in open and distance learning literature 2009-2018.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as a copyvio.

Despite VGPaleontologist’s falsification (on p. 1) of the license, this article is “NC” limited. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Delete. The image on page 1 is different than what was given in the transcription of the page. The scan's image clearly stated non-commercial. @VGPaleontologist: Was this accidental? PseudoSkull (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, this was. My apologies are all I can offer. VGPaleontologist (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@VGPaleontologist: No worries. Would you like me to speedy it? PseudoSkull (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

French Constitution of October 4th, 1958 (1960)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, translation still copyrighted

No licence given, from a 1960 book published in London. While the original is PD-EdictGov, there is nothing to indicate it applies to the translation as well. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Now I have noticed that it was noted to be a probable copyvio at its talk page as early as in 2008. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Constitution of Nepal

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as PD-EdictGov.

which is in fact the defunct 1990 Constitution of Nepal. Original contributor did not add any licence tag for the translation and there are no signs of the English translation being in the public domain in the U. S. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Por una Cabeza

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as {{PD-Argentina}}, but nominated in WS:PD for violating WS:T and WS:WWI.

Looks like a Wikisource user's translation of a Spanish song. The song was composed in 1935, so the Spanish original is probably still not in the public domain in the United States. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Keep This work is correctly marked as PD-1996. Per commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Argentina, Argentina joined the Berne Convention in 1967, and the Argentine copyright term in 1996 was 50 years p.m.a. The lyrics to Por una Cabeza were written by Alfredo Le Pera, who died in 1935, meaning that the copyright on the lyrics expired in 1985. This copyright was restored in 1997 when Argentina extended their copyright term to 70 years p.m.a. (until 2005 for this work), but the work was out of copyright in Argentina on the URAA date (January 1, 1996). —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 23:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I see. So I am withdrawing this proposal, nominating it to WS:PD instead. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good! This prompted me to redo Module:PD-1996, so thanks for that. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 00:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Church History

The following discussion is closed:

The discussed issues were registered in the US and copyright not renewed, and so they are eligible to be hosted in WS.

w:Church History is a quarterly journal published by Cambridge University Press (i. e. in the UK) "on behalf of the American Society of Church History". Can this be considered as being published in the US simultaneously, and can {{PD-US-no renewal}} tag be used for pre-1963 articles from this journal? I am considering adding an article from 1943. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Jan Kameníček: So far as I can tell, the issues were formally registered in the United States (as copyrightable matter), so U.S. copyright rules apply. In any case, they were clearly held out for sale by the ASCH, which suffices as “publication” for copyright purposes. Also, I checked renewals for issues of periodicals, and found none for Church History from 1943. I can check the specific article which you wish to add for renewal, if you’re interested. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Albert (Tolstoy)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, English translation copyrighted in the US

Appears to have been first published in the 1933 collection Nine Stories vol. 5 of the Centenary Edition by OUP. Google Books , and hence URAA restored. MarkLSteadman (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Nokoreach

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, English translation not proved to be in the public domain

English translation of the national anthem of Cambodia, without any licence given, moved here from Wikipedia in 2005. There are various versions of this text all over the Internet, their wording often deviating more or less from our version (e. g. in the 4th verse). The oldest printed book among Google Books that offers a very similar version (but not identical) is Songs of Freedom (1967), see here. Not found in any publication in HathiTrust. To sum it up, there is no trace of any proof that the translation of the lyrics is in the public domain. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Kureshy Akhtar Aly

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as a copyvio

Marked as possible copyvio, The listed source seems to have a standard copyright message. The author appears to be a living lawyer and academic, so I'm not understanding the license tag, applied. If it is own work, the tag can be removed. The uploader/contributor appears to have had a number of images deleted at Commons. Also there is already an author page.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The texts are also here Wikisource:Authors-Akhtar Aly Kureshy, Author:Akhtar Aly Kureshy, the Category:Authors:Akhtar Aly Kureshy and the Category:Authors-Akhtar Aly Kureshy.   Delete all of them. Even with self release, it needs proper sourcing / etc. but I doubt it would pass WWSI anyways as self-publishing. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Speedied and the contributing accounts blocked. The first try to bring this Kureshy issue here took place on 16 February, see User talk:43.245.207.47. They brought it here just because they did not succeed in Wikipedia, where User:Jinnahpk was blocked for suckpuppetting, see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnahpk/Archive. I suspect we may expect more attempts to add similar texts from them, so they should be deleted upon spot. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (1930)

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as published in the US in 1930 within 30 days from the London publication and with copyright not renewed

This copy, at least, indicates publication only in London. As the author died in 1936, the work was copyrighted in the U.K. on the URAA date, and the copyright in this work is restored and will last until the end of next year. I haven’t checked for this work whether there was simultaneous publication, however. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: First, you could have pinged me. That said, I believe your analysis is incorrect. See this five-point test on Wikipedia. There was a New York edition published at pretty much the same time: see this Worldcat item. It was published pretty well around the world to my knowledge. It was merely unfortunate luck that it's the London edition that archive.org had. (I'm not seeing month-level specificity here, but I think the identical year is sufficient to show it was simultaneously published.) SnowFire (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea.: I've checked the book "Marmaduke Pickthall: British Muslim" (archive.org link). It implies that if anything, it was first published in the United States, which means the lack of a copyright renewal should seal the deal. Here's the quote: "His translation of the Qur'an, first printed in the United States in 1930, has since been reprinted several times in the United Kingdom, the United States, India, the United Arab Emirates, and Libya." (From page 1, or page 16 of the PDF.) SnowFire (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@SnowFire: Simultaneous publication requires actual publication in the US no later than 30 days after the first publication. It's usually impossible to document this with absolute precision, but we do need sufficient evidence to make it probable to within about a week at least. Your quote saying it was published first in the US and later reprinted elsewhere is a good indication, but that source can be wrong for any number of reasons so more research is needed. Xover (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Case in point, the first mention I find of this work is in the Liverpool Daily Post for 18 October 1930 (p. 4) where it is mentioned as "… which Mr. Knopf is preparing for publication next month [i.e. November 1930]." The next earliest is in The Cincinnati Enquirer for 20 December 1930 (p. 7) which says that "[it] will be published by Alfred A. Knopf in January [i.e. January 1931]." Based on these dates the work was first published in the UK, and US publication did not happen within 30 days. It's still possible that these dates could be wrong—the UK mention is forward-looking and somewhat vague, and it is the only UK newspaper mention of this work which is somewhat unusual—but on the available evidence one certainly cannot assume simultaneous publication. Xover (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I think the above "Marmaduke Pickthall: British Muslim" source is the stronger one. I'm not saying books can't make mistakes - they can and do. But this is to my knowledge the (only?) book on Pickthall that deep-dived his work and read all the related primary documents, and I didn't see any howlers when I read through it. I'd trust it as the most scholarly source on the topic. Contemporary newspapers make far more mistakes - here is a newspaper talking about a 1953 (!) printing of Pickthall's Koran but seems to be under the impression it's a new translation, which is fully wrong. Just means that newspaper editors weren't perfect.
As for the US publication date, I can't find a scan of the US printing, but per Worldcat, it had a 1930 publication date, which suggests to me that it probably did make it out in time for a December 1930 publication, although I suppose it's possible that it was printed with a 1930 date but actually was in stores in January 1931. But that seems unlikely and not the first thing to assume. I found an Amazon listing of a 1930 edition with a photograph taken that, if you zoom in, does indeed show "New York" as the printing location rather than London, so Worldcat isn't wrong. (There's also that archive.org seems to think it was free to use, hence not requiring the "borrow" option and allowing the PDF download to begin with, although yes, I know that this is even less reliable than newspapers or the cited book given that archive.org sets those overly generously at times.) This is more a side note though, I still favor going with the best (IMO) source that researched Pickthall which says the New York publication was the first one. SnowFire (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  • (de-indent) Okay, I have what I think might be the smoking gun here. This requires an NYT subscription to read, but see [1] , a letter to the editor of all things. It says "the book had originally been manufactured in London by Alfred A. Knopf and a few hundred copies sold in the United States, before Mr. Knopf conveyed the rights to George Allen and Unwin." The author of this letter is w:Victor Weybright, writing as a Chairman of a Library (EDIT: of the New American Library, the publisher) who'd know what he's talking about. The London edition has the George Allen & Unwin marker on it, so it was the later publication. (Although apparently the physical book was actually created in England then shipped to America to be sold?! Weird. But apparently true.) SnowFire (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
    I don't have a NYT subscription, so there may be other relevant context in the letter, but that sentence really only says Knopf also shipped a few hundred copies to the US for sale. It doesn't change the fact that according to the Liverpool Daily Post Knopf published it in the UK first, or that according to The Cincinnati Enquirer those "few hundred copies" didn't go on sale in the US until January following. That the rights were later conveyed to George Allen and Unwin is immaterial here. Xover (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
    That isn't my reading of what the NYT letter says. While it is of course possible that the letter is in error, if the letter is not in error, it directly says that the shipment to New York happened, and then later the rights were transferred to George Allen & Unwin. The PDF scan of the 1930 London edition shows George Allen and Unwin, and if the first Alfred A. Knopf shipment was really only a few hundred copies, it wouldn't be shocking if there were two layers of putting the book on sale in America - a small initial shipment largely centered in New York in 1930 (that doesn't come up in newspapers.com searches), and then a larger shipment that went nationwide in late January / February 1931 (that does come up in newspapers.com searches). Localized releases like that were more common back then; this doesn't sound unusual or implausible to me. I checked the Liverpool Daily-Post, and it doesn't say that this will be the first-and-only release, merely that it will be released soon - it's not saying that this small New York shipment didn't happen. A small shipment to New York (at some point in January-November 1930), a November or December 1930 UK release, and a wide release nationwide in the United States in February 1931 would reconcile the newspaper articles you found with why both Pickthall's biographer and an editor involved in the 1953 reprinting all say it was first published in America, not in the UK. That seems the most plausible explanation to me. SnowFire (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
    I think you're getting confused by the subsequent transfer of title. A. Knopf was the first publisher for this book in both the UK and the US. Knopf later sold the publishing rights to George Allen & Unwin. The Allen & Unwin publications unquestionably happened later, but are immaterial because they were not the first publication.
    The actual evidence points to the Knopf edition being published in the UK somewhere in the range 28.–30. November 1930 (Bookseller lists it on these dates, so the 29th is a good bet). The actual evidence points to the first US publication happening in January 1930, so there is no way to reconcile this as being less than 30 days. Xover (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
    Re-reading my earlier comment, I realized I garbled Weybright's role some by saying he was "Chairman of a Library" when he's really the publisher. To go more into why I said Weybright was a very strong source: he directed the publication of the 1953 edition, which included lining up the rights. See Worldcat, which lists for publisher of the 1953 edition "New American Library, New York, 1953". Weybright signs off as "Chairman and Editor, The New American Library of World Literature." The introduction to the letter makes clear he's talking about why he republished Pickthall's edition; he writes "In our search for an interpretive rendition of the Koran into English we found "The Meaning of the Glorious Koran" the most widely known and respected throughout the Moslem world..." So this is one of the strongest possible sources attesting to an initial American publication: someone who investigated the issue with money on the line, near in time to the event, and publicly talked about it. SnowFire (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  • (de-indent) Re Xover above: I disagree on where the "actual evidence" is pointing. I had assumed simultaneous publication when uploading but further investigation has genuinely convinced me it was first published in America. (This might be my Wikipedia side talking, but secondary sources > contemporary sources, so the biographer's opinion in "Marmaduke Pickthall: British Muslim" should be trusted by default here IMO.) If we set aside Weybright's letter above as confusion over the nature and timing of the transfer to George Allen & Unwin... we can check how later publications cite it on their licensing pages. See Everyman's Library 1993 edition. (Amusingly enough, published by a successor to Knopf, but that doesn't mean it's still copyrighted - just that they published older stuff and threw in some new introductions, calligraphy, notes, etc. They mark those as copyrighted, but not the original.) It directly says "This translation first published by Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1930." I don't know how much I'd trust the quran-archive edition (they're probably using the public domain in author's life + 70 rules from non-US where it'd be uncontroversially PD), but note that it also says "This translation was first published by Alfred A Knopf, New York, 1930." If all the more modern publications think it was first published in New York, and we have Weybright saying a small shipment was sent to New York (which is probably NOT the January 1931 shipment that the reviews in Midwest newspapers were talking about, if the original shipment was really so small), this does make it sound like they wanted to publish first in the US for whatever reason but with a tiny printing. Unfortunately, because it was small, it doesn't appear to have earned newspaper reviews, at least in easily searchable places. But I still don't think that's a reason to disbelieve it happened. Weybright uses "originally" very directly when talking about the first sale, Pickthall's biographer says it happened in the US first, and later publications say it happened in the US first. If I'm wrong about this apparent publication in New York at some point in 1930 (earlier and separate from the Jan 1931 shipment seen in outside-NY newspaper reviews), I'm at least in good company with others who all believe this too. SnowFire (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    Secondary sources must be assessed for reliability too, and secondary sources, writing much later, that just make a bald assertion, as an aside, with no supporting details, and which do not cite their authority or evidence for the claim, do not trump observable reality (not even on enWP). You are also citing a bunch of far-removed sources and assigning them an authority far out of proportion to their fallibility, but adduce numerous reasons why a contemporary account with direct knowledge "must" be mistaken. IOW, I think we're at the "drop the stick" point. Xover (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    So my understanding is that we are going back and forth about whether the 1930 date on this edition [2] means it was actually published in 1930 (based on the book date, his biographer, the later publications) or January 1931 (based on the Cincinnati Enquirer article), and hence whether it is was 3 weeks or say 6 weeks. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a biographer to have access to records or a major publisher to do a rights check that may be more definitive but it is also certainly possible they just looked at the book, saw 1930, and went with it, we don't know since it doesn't have a citation for the "published by Knopf of New York in December 1930" statement in the biography (and even whether that represents confusion between the London and New York branches). It all depends on your priors around such things, I understand the dismal as well (no citation and it is worthless). My general take would be there is enough to say, yup there is enough evidence for us to go with 1930 rather than requiring definitive proof but YMMV. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
    I think that's a pretty good summary of the issue, yes. Xover (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. SnowFire, I started this discussion because of the potential for evidentiary disputes about original month of publication like the one you had with Xover after I brought attention to it. At the end of your long conversation, while it’s a close call, the balance of the evidence in my view is that there was initial U.S. publication, or that U.S. publication occurred only a very short time after U.K. publication. Therefore, the work is covered by U.S. copyright rules and is in the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  •   Keep In addition to my statement above, I suspect that it is close enough that even if the official publication date is in January, actual publication for copyright purposes appeared earlier for example distributing review copies or to people for Christmas etc. Given that it didn't seem that copyright was a major concern, no filing or copyright when I looked for instance, I doubt they would have been super strict about control not making sure the books left the warehouse anyways. Well it isn't definitive, I think I have seen enough to say that is probably the best match to the available evidence. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

"To a friend intending a difficult work" by Thomas Browne

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. The oldest found publication of the English translation dates to 1964, so still copyrighted in the US

I don't think this English translation of an original Latin text is free of copyright. First, it was not published in the 1835–1836 edition of Browne's works as claimed, but appears in a modern edition first published in 1928, with a revised edition in 1964. According to the preface, the translation was by William LeFanu who only died in 1995. Sgconlaw (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Two clarifications. The Latin text was published in the Wilkins 1835 edition so the 1835 date references the first publication of the Latin original. The translations from Latin is missing from the first edition, volume 5 actually published in 1931 has the other texts, (which volume matters because the 1928 volumes are in the public domain in the US, Geoffrey Keynes died in 1982 so still copyrighted in the UK). LeFanu would have been 24 in 1928, and 27 in 1931, old enough to have done the translations, but it seems they only date to 1964 (when renewal was not required).   Delete MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Index:Discipline in school and cloister (1902).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as being in the public domain in the US.

There is no author lifetime, and there is no infromation about any potential translators, It is PD-US (1902 publication) date, but I'm not going to apply PD-old-assumed without further information. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

PD-old-assumed states that it was published >120 years ago, so I am not sure what further information is needed to apply it: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-old-assumed. It is perfectly reasonably to start a conversation (on Commons) to update it to be a 130 or 150 or what not, but it is what it is so I am not sure what information you are looking for since it is clearly compliant with that template. If we found the death date of the author we wouldn't apply PD-old-assumed by the appropriate death date, no? MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Ideally the information needed is the translator/author, Otherwise I am not sure it can be hosted on Commons according to it's rules. PD-old-assumed needs a "reasonable" effort to be made to find that information. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Well presumably same who wrote this (in 1893) https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k8579911 based on "30-years" diary... and this is probably a pseudonymn anyways (per french WS: https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Auteur:Jacobus_X and the BNF) publishing erotica, there isn't much to go on. That certainly meets the reasonablessness check for me that this isn't some obvious well-known name.  Keep MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  Comment Per various sources Jacobus X is a pseudonym of w:Louis Jacolliot. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Per the links cited, "His real identity is unknown. Various recent writers, notably Matt Cook in London and the Culture of Homosexuality, 1885-1914 (2003) p. 93 claim he was one “Louis Jarolliot”, without presenting evidence. Others give Jarolliot’s dates as 1837-90, which would appear to be a confusion with the well-known colonial judge and travel writer Louis Jacolliot, who lived at these dates, while a few say Jacolliot was indeed the “attributed” author, though he was not a doctor and he died well before the books were written. Yet others, apparently led by David Friedman, A Cultural History of the Penis (2008) p. 123, identify the author as one Dr. Jacobus Sutor." Digging into the various claims and arguments here is fine on the talk page say, all names here are way pass PMA-70 for France and all this argument is about Commons hosting anyways, it is clearly hostable on WS per our policies, and arguing about a template {{PD-old-assumed}} that doesn't even exist on WS.... MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
With no more arguments coming, I think we can close this discussion as kept for English Wikisource. If there are doubts about its status in Commons, it would be better to discuss there to give the Commons community a chance to express their opinion too. Whether we want or need to have something like PD-old-assumed is a more general issue which can be discussed at an appropriate place, such as Scriptorium. Until then, {{PD-US}} (or {{PD-anon-US}}) should be sufficient to keep this work here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Arise O Compatriots, Nigeria's Call Obey

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, probably copyrighted

National anthem of Nigeria. The music, not reproduced here, is apparently very much copyrighted (see here), and I have found no indication that the lyrics are not also likewise under copyright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The Myth of Starbuck

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, copyright not renewed.

Unbelievable as it is that any Discordian primary source could be copyrighted, this one might just be. Things are a bit complicated, so here's the dot points:

  • Included in the first edition of the Principia Discordia was "The Myth of Ichabod". As printed in "Historia Discordia" the section in question has "Copyright 1963, Gregory H. Hill" handwritten at the end.
  • The last page of the first edition of the Principia Discordia states "Permission is hearby granted to quote from or to reproduce this manuscript on the following conditions: a) that credit is given to the DS and the author; b) that any money made from the direct result of usg this ms be forewarded to the DS treasury to be used by the DS at large (c/o Gregory Hill). Any deviation from the above conditions requires written permission by Malaclypse (The Younger), K.C. Note that "The Myth of Ichabod" is legally copyrighted." I note that if the notice is only considered to apply to the single chapter, the rest of it would be PD-US-no-notice.
  • The first edition was published in 1965. There's a copy of a different (earlier?) version in the National Archives, and that version doesn't have the copyright notice, but I don't think it counts as a publication.

Anyway, it's a pretty complex situation. Arcorann (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean the National Archives? US publication in the 1960s was pretty complex, so I'd be interested in knowing the details.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
As I understand it, it was collected in 1978 and added to the JFK collection of the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations. For some reason I've been having trouble hunting down an online copy (even though it was online in the past). Arcorann (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Was there a copyright renewal? With a notice date of 1963, I think that was required (in 1991). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Nothing for the Principia Discordia (which incidentally would include the Loompanics edition material), or the Myth of Ichabod/Starbuck; however, 1965 was after the date at which renewal is no longer relevant. I don't know how to reconcile the discrepancy between notice date and publishing date. Arcorann (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
If the copyright notice says 1963, and it was published in 1965, then the copyright would have started on 1963. There was a movie from 1943 or something, and the copyright notice said Copyright MDCCCCXXXIII, and they lost copyright because they didn't renew it 28 years after 1933, when the copyright notice was dated. So it would need a renewal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Is there a source where I can confirm this? Just to make sure. Arcorann (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Confirmed in United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 4/Section 406. I think we can close this now (and I'll correct the copyright tag). Arcorann (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

A Mental Suggestion

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Published in 1969 and thus still copyrighted.

This short story was to be published in A Vocation and a Voice (1898), but as that collection was never published (owing to the failure of The Awakening), this short story was first published in the Complete Works (1969). As that volume is still copyrighted, this short story (first published therein) is also copyrighted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Duty, honor, country

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyrighted, not elligible to be PD-EdictGov.

Is this speech by Douglas MacArthur one given as an official of the US Military? And if so, is it therefore public domain? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Per wikipedia, it seems that he had retired ten years earlier. -- Beardo (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Since it is from 1962 it would need to have been registered and then renewed? Also even if serving as a military officer it isn't clear that this is related to his official duties. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The Bremen Town Musicians (without source)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvios.

Recently flagged by Beleg Tâl. Looks like this is D.L. Ashliman's translation: "Translated by D. L. Ashliman. © 2001-2006", with no free license that I can find. --YodinT 11:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Have gone through User:Stellatomailing's contribs and found the rest of them that are still up at their original title. We have scan-backed public-domain translations of all of them by Margaret Hunt (including the above story):
--YodinT 14:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I've removed all links to these works from other pages (translations pages, etc.) --YodinT 14:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The Fun of It (1932)

The following discussion is closed:

Copyright not renewed so the book is elligible to be hosted in Wikisource.

Amelia Earhart's second book The Fun of It was published in 1932. I can find a scan on IA. But I cannot find a copyright renewal in the Stanford database nor in the online scans at Gutenberg. Can anyone else find something, or do we have a case of a lapsed copyright? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  • I manually checked both the original registration (which does exist) and the renewal issues from the time (and the one for the next one, in case of a late registration). I didn’t find anything, so this looks like PD-US-no-renewal to me. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Deep Elm Blues

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as a copyvio.

No source; misspelled title; notes that point out this was a song first recorded in 1933, but claim it's "traditional". This feels like a copyvio. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Emily Dickinson

The following discussion is closed:

Poems with no date and poems published after 1928 deleted.

While Dickinson died in the 1800s, many of her poems were only published in 1929 or later. The 1929 collection's copyright was renewed in 1957, and the same goes for later collections. See List of Emily Dickinson poems for info. It seems that many non-PD-US poems are on Wikisource. They'll need to be deleted and set for undeletion in the appropriate year (some as early as next year) according to the publication details. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Cleaning this is going to require huge amount of work and I am afraid it will be difficult to find someone who will undertake it. The pages with Dickinson's poems lack basic information like year of publication, source and even licence. Especially the licence is crucial for their keeping, but I wonder who is going to go through all 1775 of them, verifying copyright of each of them and adding licence templates. What is more, some of them (like The feet of people walking home) need to be split as they contain several versions in one page (all of them unsourced of course). Besides, the system of their sequencing by number instead of adding them to subpages of the works which they were published in is inconsistend with our practice. It might be better to delete them and allow editors to start anew, I believe that works of such an author as Emily Dickinson would be added again quickly. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  Comment This is one of the major problems with many of our works 1. not being scan-backed or 2. not being part of collection subpages or 3. not following a consistent style guide on titles. It creates these very kinds of problems. If the material needs to be verified, deleted in bulk, assessed, etc., this suddenly becomes much more difficult.
So we could maybe, rather than consider this a single deletion debate, consider the Emily Dickinson effort a large-scale maintenance project to change bad titles, identify original sources, collect the material in subpages, and maybe delete some if necessary. I'll think about taking it up, but don't take my word for it that I will. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
A note on Wikidata: I found that the poems have Wikidata items, but they are categorized at the work level rather than the version level. For example, Within my reach!. There is also a Wikidata item on WS numbering of works by Emily Dickinson that will need to be completely deleted, since we need to just do away with this numbering scheme, since the numbers appear to have no basis in any source other than ourselves. If I take this project on, I'll fix up all the Wikidata stuff as well. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: if you want to tackle the WD items associated with Poems (Dickinson) I'd appreciate it, but if not I intend to try and take care of those eventually. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: If I didn't start the Wikidata thing in a week or two, leave me a message somewhere or ping me. SnowyCinema (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I got started on it yesterday and split off the wikidata idems for Part I and Part II, but I think I'll leave the rest to you lol —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
(Also I got rid of "WS numbering of works by Emily Dickinson" - I merged it into the item for the 1955 Poems of Emily Dickinson where the numbers originated) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
So here's the hard numbers. Apparently 962 of the poems we have were made after 1929, and 64 have an unknown date of first publication. This gives us a lofty number of 1026 possible individual copyright discussions we may need to have in the future... Just over a thousand sections. Isn't that lovely?
This is all according to the Wikipedia list at List of Emily Dickinson poems#Table. I've made two userspace pages to visualize:
Hopefully this is helpful, if not scary for some. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
My personal recommendation is a bulk deletion. Just to be on the safe side. But that's just me. Added to the fact that none of the samples I'm seeing for presumably copyrighted ones have scans to back them. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  • PseudoSkull: Most of the 962 definite-date poems were originally published in one of a few (dozen or so) volumes of Dickinson’s poetry, so there could just be a few headings which list all of the articles thereunder. However, all of our copies of the poems here are the original versions (taken from her handwriting), and those were generally first published in the variorum editions of 1955 and 1998—meaning that basically all of her poems which we hold (and are not scan-backed) are still copyrighted. As for the poems without a listed date on the table, I believe that that means that they were first published after “the Todd & Bianchi volumes of 1890-1945” (that is, in the two variorum editions I mentioned which were published in 1955 and 1998). So, if you want to consolidate the tables and/or make more tables based on this information, or maybe just one table listing all of her poems which are not scan-backed, that would probably be the table from which to make deletions. The numbering schemes (of which there are two, of which we use either one or a combination) are from the two variorum editions, so they’re not wholly Wikisource-originated. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  Comment I've also been long suspicious of the tendency in these poems to use spaces between em dashes, in both titles and the poems themselves. An example is at Suspense — is Hostiler than Death —. Are there any scans that prove they were actually written this way? Because this practice is generally something we avoid here. @Beleg Tâl: I saw you working on these. What are your thoughts? I'd like to see those pages moved, and the poems fixed (for the ones that aren't deleted). If a bot for that job is desired, I'll volunteer. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
None of the poems in Poems (Dickinson) have dashes in their titles. Beyond that, I really don't know. I suspect that the "preferred" titles for these poems would remove the dashes entirely. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The dashes, like the index numbers, appear to originate with Thomas H. Johnson's The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson (1955). This edition has no titles, but refers to each poem by first line. The dashes in the text do have spaces surrounding them. If this edition were hosted here (ignoring the fact that the collection is still under copyright), we would remove the spaces around the dashes per WS:MOS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Delete the poems with no date, and the poems published in 1929 and later, as copyvio. The rest of them are included in collections that are already in progress, and once they're completed we can discuss their deletion at WS:PD (the 1890 collection is already under discussion there). Next year we should also prioritize proofreading Further Poems of Emily Dickinson (1929) to restore those poems to our collection. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to SnowyCinema for creating both the list of poems probably copyrighted and list of poems without a listed date. Unless some new ideas appear, I will delete the listed poems in a short time and close this discussion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted and imo ready to be closed. The sequencing system from the header of the rest should probably also be removed (see e. g. here), but that can be discussed somewhere else. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Covenant of Omar

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, no evidence of the translation being in the public domain in the US.

The original text is from long ago, but it's unclear where the translation came from. Perhaps there is a public domain or freely licensed translation available, but I see no reason to believe this is one. It appears to be one of the versions that has been copy-pasted all over the web. The archived webpage I linked in the "notes" does mention a book it's from, but not the year of the book, and I wasn't able to find info about the book with a brief search. Seems more likely than not a copyrighted translation. -Pete (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Note, I see that another version of this is under discussion above at #Pact of Umar. Pinging User:TE(æ)A,ea. -Pete (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Pete: So far as I can see, the “Covenant” (or “Code”) is a different translation of the first part of the “Pact.” The source given (from here) is to Tārīkh al-Umam wal Mulūk, an Arabic (extant in Turkish and Persian) source text, not an English book. I am not sure of the source of this translation. A definitely public-domain translation can be found here, pp. 168–169. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I said "version" when I meant "translation". Not making any strong claims here, just pointing out adjacency to somebody working on related material. -Pete (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Dada Manifesto (1916, Hugo Ball)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, no evidence of the translation being in the public domain in the US.

The text for this translation is from a transcription of a handwritten copy done much later; the translation, so far as I can tell, was made by Christopher Middleton for John Elderfield’s version of Ball’s diary Flight Out of Time, at pp. 219–221 in the second edition (which is “Copyright © 1974 Viking Press, Inc.”). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  •   Delete per nom. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I trust this is an accurate report, so   Delete. However, per the page's talk page, there's at least one incoming link; seems like higher priority than some to find the actual version it purports to be. I did a quick search, seems like there's a page scan here and another purported transcription here, though it might take more research to be confident they are truly the 1916 1918 version. If a legitimate PD version can be located, a redirect from the above link should point there. -Pete (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, translation copyrighted.

This is an incomplete copy of a copyrighted translation (from the mid-1980s). There is no official translation, so far as I know, that could replace it. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Leo Tolstoy as the Mirror of the Russian Revolution

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, translation not in the public domain in the US.

This translation is from Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1973, Moscow, Volume 15. It's possible that this translation is in the public domain, but I doubt it. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Weird Tales/Volume 19/Issue 3/The Thing in the Cellar

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as being in the public domain in the US.

According to https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/weirdtales all of volume 19 no 3 was renewed. The WT listing page says Copyright renewed R250136. -- Beardo (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Delete per nomination. @Fenrix1958: per Talk:Weird Tales/Volume 19/Issue 3/The Thing in the Cellar -Pete (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  Delete per nom. Xover (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Letter recommending persecution of certain Muslims

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. The identification of the translator in the text was incorrect; the discussion has identified both the correct translator and a clearly public domain source for the text.

This claims to be a translation by David Price, with no identifying info. The link goes to a U.S. rep born in 1940, though that David Price's bio does not mention Arabic or translation among his skills. Still, no claim of free license or public domain status is asserted, and the Wikisource edition is the only one that appears in a basic web search. Seems unlikely this translation is PD or freely licensed. -Pete (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Different David Price (1782-1835), the source is one of the volumes of this book: https://archive.org/details/chronologicalret03pric   Keep (wrt to copyright). I've updated the link. MarkLSteadman (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Too bad my search didn't include just dropping the years, whoops. Seems to me the {{copyvio}} banner could be dropped from the page, at minimum, and maybe this should just be considered resolved. @MarkLSteadman: any reason not to just close this now? -Pete (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes: copyvio discussions, once opened, generally need to run for two weeks to let others chime in. The only exceptions are noms made in bad faith or noms determined to be eligible for speedy deletion. And I think that's a good idea, because I have made copyvio noms that seemed clear-cut but which other contributors were able to identify as public domain; and there have been cases where things that looked clear-cut the other way (clearly PD) took a turn and ended up being deleted.
Not that I don't support some IAR'ing in some cases to avoid excess bureaucracy, but I tend to be conservative on that for copyvio discussions because 1) the area is often very complicated (benefits from multiple contributors) and 2) despite this it is often possible to arrive at a bright-line decision (unlike other deletion discussions). Xover (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
As it stands the page carries a very forceful comment in the editorial voice, which I think no individual Wikisource contributor actually believes. "The contents of this page may violate Wikisource's copyright policy." It also blanks the contents of the page on that basis. I have no problem with letting the discussion continue, but keeping the blanking banner in place during that discussion seems more or less like bureacracy for bureaucracy sake, at the expense of the reader's access to information and understanding of Wikisource editors' analysis. .Pete (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 07:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Maugham - Of Human Bondage, 1915.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Kept / no action required. The work was first published in the US more than 95 years ago, and as such it is eligible for hosting on Commons.

W. Somerset Maugham died in 1965. Does this file therefore need to be localised? It's in the current MC. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

On Human Bondage appears to have been first published in the US. The New York Times for June 6th, 1915 lists it as being scheduled for June 26th, while The Observer for August 8th, 1915 lists it as being scheduled for publication the same week. As such it would be a US work for Commons licensing purposes (because it is a US work in all Berne countries), with pub. +95 being the only applicable copyright term. Xover (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Xover: Trying to parse this, do you conclude that the copyright would have expired in 2010 in the US, which is the only relevant country in this case for both Commons and Wikisource, ergo compliant with both Commons and Wikisource copyright policies? -Pete (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Yup. Xover (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Aash Al Maleek

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as probably copyrighted

A 1935 1984 work where the author died in 2017. And no information on the translation. -- Beardo (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: The Wikipedia article says the Arabic lyrics were written in 1984. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Good point, yes, it does seem unlikely that he wrote it the same year that he was born. Someone put the wrong year in there in an edit in 2011. Unless the words have some special copyright status through having been requested by the King, my point stands. -- Beardo (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Text from the Rosetta Stone

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as a copyvio.

This appears to be the translation by Quirke and Andrews, published in the 1980s, and almost certainly copyrighted. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Moon Treaty

The following discussion is closed:

The work falls under {{PD-EdictGov}}.

As an international treaty, what license should be placed on this work? I can find nothing on Help:Copyright tags that applies in this instance. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

We generally use {{PD-EdictGov}} for international treaties. Our most recent discussion on the subject appears to be this one. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Given that it was drafted at the UN, {{PD-UN}} may also be appropriate [3]. [4]. MarkLSteadman (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
This treaty was never ratified by any country, and the UN is not itself a competent legislative assembly, so EdictGov does not apply. {{PD-UN}} would seem to be the nearest, but I do not immediately see that this falls within any of the relevant categories. Xover (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
It was never ratified by a country with a manned spaceflight program, but it was ratified by 18 countries; see here. Since the treaty has force of law in those countries, it seems to me that {{PD-EdictGov}} should apply (although {{PD-UN}} might also apply idk) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
It was passed as a resolution by the General Assembly and included in the official Resolutions and Decisions list so I would think it would count as "Official Records". MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I was unsatisfied with {{PD-EdictGov}} because it is a statement about US copyright status only, and since this has not been ratified by the US, the tag seemed inadequate on its own. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

{{PD-EdictGov}} applies to foreign laws as well as local laws, so even though a treaty is not ratified in the US, it would still be PD in the US. (Mostly commenting this for anybody referencing this discussion in the future.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Index:Writing for the World - Wikipedia as an Introduction to Academic Writing.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Kept as {{PD-USGov}}.

Two questions here: (1) Is English Teaching Forum a publication by the U.S. government or merely one maintained by it (allowing individual contributions to have copyrights)? (2) Is the author (described in the text as “an Assistant Professor of Writing, Rhetoric, and Discourse at DePaul University in Chicago. She has taught ESL/EFL writing for over 15 years in the United States, the Czech Republic, Japan, and Turkey.”) one to qualify for PD-USGov? The PDF indicates that she held, at some point, a government job, so I’m not sure there either. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any copyright information in the English Teaching Forum publication itself. The website links to the Department of State copyright information page, which states "Unless a copyright is indicated, information on State Department websites is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission." For this reason, I am inclined to believe that English Teaching Forum and its contents fall under {{PD-USGov}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Content related to 2008 U.S. presidential election

Unclear how the following works are or are not compatible with Wikisource copyright policy. I'm putting three somewhat different topics under one heading, because they're similar, but they might need different outcomes.

1. John McCain Concession Speech

This one seems clear-cut to me, this is a speech given by a senator and a presidential nominee, but in his capacity as a candidate not as an agent of the U.S. government. So {{PD-USgov}} seems to clearly not apply.

Adding some similar speeches below; none of these appear to be in McCain's capacity as senator, but rather as a guest of private organizations. -Pete (talk) 05:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

2. Barack Obama's 2008 election victory speech

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as unlicensed

This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

3. Press conferences of incoming Obama administration

The press conferences of the incoming Obama administration:

This one has been discussed before, thank you MarkLSteadman for the info. See: Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2011-04#Barack Obama's president-elect press conference - 25 November 2008 So I'm not proposing deletion for these. However, while the CC-BY 3.0 template may be accurate, the reader has no way to verify the accuracy. The reasoning that's provided in the Wikisource discussion should be made available in some way on the page. What's the best approach? It could be accomplished in several ways (through individual notes on each page, through a note on a new Barack Obama's president-elect press conferences parent page, etc.) What's the best approach to empower the reader to verify that the asserted license template is accurate? -Pete (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC) Pete (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

For convenience here is an archive link of the copyright policy at change.gov (which is a dead link in the discussion linked above) [5] -Pete (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
In terms of missed life opportunities, I sure wish I could have been in the meeting where Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, Susan Rice, Jim Jones, and Joe Biden, or their lawyers...as well as the reporters who asked the questions...(i.e., those who "authored" the December 8 press conference)...agreed to a CC license. -Pete (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
well this gets into off the cuff remarks and eligibility for copyright in general too as opposed to the prepared statement https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_of_Political_Speeches MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
That meta wiki page is really interesting, thanks for linking it @MarkLSteadman:! Lots to learn. It does seem like scenarios could emerge where it's not possible to host a scan or other source document on Wikimedia servers without violating (to my eyes questionable) copyright a media company might claim; but maybe that's not something to worry about. -Pete (talk) 05:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: I believe a link to [6] in the {{textinfo}} template on each work's talk page would be the usual and least confusing place for this, wouldn't it? —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Beleg Âlt: That seems like one reasonable option, if the pages are to be kept, yes. It wasn't done when the previous discussion was closed, and I was wondering if there was something more going on here. For what it's worth, I haven't found a clear policy on where sources should be linked for works that don't have proper scan-backing; {{No source}}, for instance, does not prescribe where the source should be added. I understand that the talk page has been the "traditional" place, but it seems to me much more useful to add it to the "notes" field in the header template. I don't have any stake in these particular works, but I am interested to hear if there's a problem with me adding such information in the header template as a general rule. -Pete (talk) 05:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's a policy per se, but using edition = yes in the header and then {{textinfo}} on the talk page is such a well-established precedent and standard that I would highly recommend sticking to it (or at least, I'd seek community feedback at WS:S before changing it up). Bear in mind that we operate as much on precedent and consensus as we do on official policy :) —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 14:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Aha! The "edition" parameter is the part I'd been missing. Yes, what you say makes perfect sense now. -Pete (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

And if I may add:

4. Democratic Debates

There are these two, with no source given:

with no source, I cannot see how we can know if these were released. -- Beardo (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2024&oldid=14044788"