Wikisource:Copyright discussions

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days. For the archive overview, see /Archives.Template:Autoarchive resolved section/parameter timecompare set to 'resolved'

Coronavirus Disease Outbreak in Call Center, South Korea

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Tagged as CC-BY-4.0.

Can someone please verify that the license stated on the page is correct? ToxicPea (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Surely the CDC is part of the US federal government and so PD-USGov is the applicable license ? -- Beardo (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The US CDC is just the publisher (I think it's the publisher.) The authors are associated with the Korean CDC and other Korean entities, and nowhere on the page do I see any free license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

"Most of the information on the CDC and ATSDR websites is not subject to copyright, is in the public domain, and may be freely used or reproduced without obtaining copyright permission.

... Copyright-protected materials featured on the CDC and ATSDR websites should include a copyright statement." - https://www.cdc.gov/other/agencymaterials.html

However:

"2) You must utilize a disclaimer which clearly indicates that your use of the material, including any links to the materials on the CDC, ATSDR or HHS websites, does not imply endorsement by CDC, ATSDR, HHS or the United States Government of you, your company, product, facility, service or enterprise."

and

"3) You may not change the substantive content of the materials; and

4) You must state that the material is otherwise available on the agency website for no charge." -- Beardo (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. This article was published in Emerging Infectious Diseases, the contents of which are in the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Okay. It's a pretty bad copy though, since the images are missing and the license is wrong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  • That may be the case, but those issues do not go to copyright and are irrelevant to this discussion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

    What license should it be ? https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/about/general under copyright makes specific reference to CC-BY-4.0. Do we have a licence for something under the Budapest Open Access Initiative ? Or should we just use PD-release ?-- Beardo (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

    Link to the specific issue https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/articles/issue/26/8/table-of-contents which has link to a PDF version as document. CC-BY-4.0 seems appropriate as it is linked from the journal copyright page and aligns with "in the public domain ... proper citation, however, is required." It would be nice if people were clearer with these contradictory in the public domain but licensing and actually used CC if they want restrictions and "public domain" if they don't. MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Contra-Props

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted, public domain status not proven.

This article was published in a British magazine in 1941; the author died in 1946. There is no licence and no justification why it should be public domain. -- Beardo (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Restless Earth

Restless Earth, by William Graeme-Holder (1890 - 1944)

Papers Past has scans here, which includes publication details. First published as a book in Aotearoa in 1933 by the Associated N.Z. Author's Publishing Company (previously serialised by an NZ newspaper in 1931). The publisher's typographical arrangement copyright expired in NZ in 1959. Holder died in 1994, so this book entered the public domain in NZ on 1 January 1995. Am I correct in thinking this is PD-1996 under US law?--IdiotSavant (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Assuming that this wasn't published in the US before 1989, it does look like it is PD-1996. — Alien  3
3 3 08:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

So I guess the next question is whether to bodge together the national library's scan, or set up the document camera and scan my own copy. IdiotSavant (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree, it is PD-1996 (just noting that Holder died in 1944, not 1994 :-). If you need help with creating the file from the scanned pages, try to ask at WS:Scan Lab. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Mazurek Dąbrowskiego

No sign of the English translation being in the public domain, the earliest occurrence of this translated text I have found is in National anthems from around the world : the official national anthems, flags, and anthem histories from 56 countries, published in 1996. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)