Open main menu
Copyright discussions
This page hosts discussions on works that may violate Wikisource's copyright policy. You may join any current discussion or start a new one.

Note that works which are a clear copyright violation may now be speedy deleted under criteria for speedy deletion G6. To protect the legal interests of the Wikimedia Foundation, these will be deleted unless there are strong reasons to keep them within at least two weeks. If there is reasonable doubt, they will be deleted.

When you add a work to this page, please add {{copyvio}} after the header which blanks the work. If you believe a work should be deleted for any reason except copyright violation, see Proposed deletions.

If you are at least somewhat familiar with U. S. copyright regulations, Stanford Copyright Renewal Database as well as University of Pennsylvania's information about the Catalog of Copyright Entries may be helpful in determining the copyright status of the work. A search through Archive.org or Google Books may also be useful to determine if the complete texts are available due to expired copyright. Help:Public domain can help users determine whether a given work is in the public domain.

Quick reference to copyright term

Filing cabinet icon.svg
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'

Contents

DiscussionsEdit

Index:To the Victor Belongs the Spoils.djvuEdit

Raised a concern here https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Vandenberg#Index:To_the_Victor_Belongs_the_Spoils.djvu back in 2014. and not much happened since then.

Bringing it here, so that there is at least a disscussion.

The problem is the inclusion of 'third-party' images which are NOT necessarily under the same Creative Commons license as the text. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Australian photographs taken before 1955 are public domain now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Wrong country: Wikisource is hosted in the United States, not in Australia. It says that the document was published in 1999, and if this was when the photographs were first published, then they will be unfree for several more decades in the United States. I can also not find any evidence that the Creative Commons licence claim for the text is valid. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
My recollection is that the uploader of the original PDF, which was then moved to Common and converted to DJVU because the PDF wouldn't display, said his contribution was CC. This probably need someone with admin access at Commons and English Wikisource to do trace back what the originals were linking to. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Australian photographs created before 1946 were public domain in Australia in 1996 and would not have been restored by the URAA in the U.S. It is unlikely that photographs taken from external sources would have been first published in that paper. If the Creative Commons license is not valid, that is another matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Australian photographs were in the public domain 50 years after the making of the negative, nothing to do with publication.section "Provisions as to photographs" Again having and researching an evidence base for any argument would be useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
When you state that something is in the public domain, you must also state in which country it is in the public domain. This is in particular important in countries which do not use the rule of the shorter term, such as the United States. No Australian photographs created before 1955 entered the public domain in the United States 50 years after creation of the negative. That's when the copyright expired in Australia, but USA uses different rules. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The vast majority of such works expired in the U.S. when they were published without a copyright notice. Photos created 1946 and later could well have an issue though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Right. Australian photographs which were published usually entered the public domain either immediately upon publication (no notice) or 28 years after publication (no renewal). There could be some which were published with notice and renewal, but I suppose that's uncommon for non-US works. The main problems are photos not published until after 1963 (no renewal needed) and photos created after 1945 (URAA automatically added any missing notices and submitted any missing renewals). In either case, the copyright didn't expire in the United States 50 years after creation; that was only the case in Australia and in countries which recognise the rule of the shorter term. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Unless there is some evidence that a photo was kept unpublished for some time, the usual assumption for foreign photos is publication without notice. That also precludes renewals being an issue, though that is also a fallback sometimes if it turns out there was a notice. But yes, the main problem would be photos created after 1945 -- those would have had their U.S. copyright restored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Newspaper photographers seem to take lots of photographs of each event but only end up publishing one or two of them. Family photographs are also usually unpublished. Some of these unpublished photographs might later end up somewhere and become published a lot later. Therefore, it seems that most photographs are unpublished and that we can't assume that a photograph is published unless we have some indication that this is the case. Also, it does not seem safe to assume that a photograph was published without a notice, in particular not after many countries started signing the Universal Copyright Convention which mentions copyright notices. Most European publications currently contain a copyright notice, although this was a lot less common in the past. The only thing we can safely assume is that pictures were published without a renewal as there should have been very few people outside the United States who bothered submitting a renewal to the United States authorities. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Some of the images post-date 1955. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

All works under Category:PD-IndonesianGovEdit

The license {{PD-IndonesianGov}} (not to be confused with {{PD-EdictGovIndonesian}}) is explicitly nonderivative and therefore unacceptable here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

How many of these works have the correct license? Are there any of the works that ought to have a different license? Otherwise, I agree that we cannot / should not host works under the stated tag. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Some of them are listed with multiple license tags and can be kept. Some of them I'm not sure. Maybe we should discuss each individually. I'd delete the license tag though, or at least make a note on it that works cannot be hosted under the license unless they are PD in the US for some other reason. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

┌──────┘
Relevant to this discussion, I think our copy of Copyright Act of Republic of Indonesia (the basis for the distinction drawn above between {{PD-IndonesianGov}} and {{PD-EdictGovIndonesian}}) may be out of date. Copyright Act of Republic of Indonesia bills itself as a 2002 act as amended in 2014, but the 2014 revision legislation (available from WIPO, with a not-so-great machine translation into English) appears to be more in the nature of a replacement than an amendment. The rule against copyrightability of governmental works is now stated in Article 42 in terms that do not entirely overlap with Article 13 of the 2002 act; there is a new provision in Article 41 concerning limits on copyrightability of certain works; and there is a series of exceptions under new Articles 43–49, some of which may be pertinent for our purposes.

All of which is just by way of saying that perhaps this discussion needs to be tabled until we as a community develop a fuller sense of what Indonesian copyright law actually requires (and permits). Tarmstro99 23:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@RaymondSutanto, @John Vandenberg: Are you able to advise us on this matter? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, @Tarmstro99: is right: the template is out of date. The newest Copyright Act that we use is the 2014 edition (you can see it on Indonesian Wikisource: id:Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 28 Tahun 2014). The Copyright Act says that all of Acts made by government doesn't have any copyright, on Article 42 (Tidak ada Hak Cipta atas hasil karya berupa: ... b. peraturan perundang-undangan). The 2014 edition is a replacement for the 2002 edition. RaymondSutanto (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@RaymondSutanto: is the legislation retroactive, does it affect government works published before 2014?—Also, this discussion does not cover Acts of government (which are hostable under {{PD-EdictGov}}, but rather works created by the Indonesian government that are not legislative. Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is retroactive. Works that are not legislative are also counted (included) on Article 42, for example Government Regulation (Peraturan Pemerintah) and Presidential Regulation (Peraturan Presiden) that are not a legislative law. RaymondSutanto (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There's a (mediocre) translation of the 2014 law here. The changes that affect us aren't substantial. Government works that aren't listed in section 42 are still licensed in a non-compatible fashion (no derivatives except for certain purposes). The works listed in section 42 are the same as section 12 of the 2002 law, except that "scripture or religious symbols" are now exempt from copyright, and "decisions of arbitration boards or of other similar agencies" are no longer exempt from copyright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

A Tryst With DestinyEdit

See w:A Tryst With Destiny. This is a 1947 speech by Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India. Current copyright law in India gives it a copyright as a government work of 60 years, so it would be out of copyright in India in 2008. (Or so sayth Wikipedia.) I don't see it as PD in the US, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Unless it was published in the U.S. within 30 days. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: Move to BiblioWiki? I am no longer able to do it.--Jusjih (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Nobel speeches/lecturesEdit

According to https://www.nobelprize.org/faq/questions_in_category.php?id=5:

Can I use or translate a Nobel Lecture, speech or a biography?

Nobel Media administrates the publishing rights of the Nobel Lectures, speeches and biographies on Nobelprize.org on behalf of the Nobel Foundation who hold copyright. For information on how to license these, please contact media@nobel.se.

This is further confirmed on https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_organizations/nobelmedia/nobelprize_org/copyright/legal_notice.pdf

Nobel Lectures, Speeches and Biographies

To use or translate a Nobel Lecture, a presentation speech, a banquet speech or a biography, permission has to be granted by the Nobel Foundation.

If granted, "© The Nobel Foundation" and relevant year must be stated, the text correctly quoted and the author identified as the sole author of the text.

All Nobel Lectures, presentation speeches, banquet speeches and biographies are also published in the book series "Les Prix Nobel" and "Nobel Lectures."

This brings into question the following works:

-Einstein95 (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Roosevelt's speech is out of copyright because it was published before 1923. I don't see any reason why Al Gore's speech would be out of copyright, given he wasn't in a federal office in 2007. Barack Obama was President at the time of his speech, and we've generally read the copyright law to put pretty much everything the President creates into the public domain. (And it's possible it was written for him by a White House official.) But accepting the Noble Prize is generally not a Presidential duty, so...? I'm leaning towards it being a work of the US government. Faulkner's speech in 1950 may not have been copyrighted and renewed, and the URAA didn't restore copyrights of Americans like Faulkner, so that's probably in the PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Gore   Delete contributor is also known to be open-minded with their interpretation of copyright; Obama   Keep, we have called USGov; Roosevelt   Keep pre-1923; Faulkner, ??? was it published in the US, and within 30 days?. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The URAA doesn't restore works that are solely by Americans. There has to be at least one author who is from an eligible nation, which explicitly excludes the US. I can't find a renewal, but I don't know when it was first published. If it hit the New York Times via telegraph, it could have been published within 30 days in a renewed work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the URAA would restore works by Americans if they were actually residing overseas at the time. But Faulkner would not qualify. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, domiciled. Which I supposed mitigates against the undeletion of Three Stories and Ten Poems based on my proposal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted Gore's speech. @Koavf: move Faulkner's speech to BiblioWiki?--Jusjih (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Selected Essays by Karl Marx translated by Henry James StenningEdit

Set of translated works by Marc that have been held by us for a long period. They are noted as the translations being published in 1926, and confirmed as first published, and the author having died 1971 (FreeBMD date). Author is British, and the linked archive.org reprint was during the life of the author, so not a sign that the reprint was able due to no copyright. Archive.org has numbers of Stenning's works[1], though they would all appear to be in copyright.

It would appear that unfortunately that these works are copyright in UK, and US and not out of copyright until at least 95 years after publication (2021). — billinghurst sDrewth 04:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the 1926 edition was a US publication (New York, International publishers, 1926); was its copyright renewed? Or, maybe, there wa an older British-only publication? Ankry (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Nope, I can see a book review in Marxian Essays. — Aberdeen Press and Journal (Aberdeen, Scotland), Thursday, April 01, 1926; pg. 3; Issue 1040.billinghurst sDrewth 01:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

1934 Interview with Joseph StalinEdit

Pulled from the web, but I cannot access the source location. Is this in PD, or still under copyright? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's a scan of an early publication (for reference) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
That's a British work from 1934, so it will be PD-US in 2030. Wells died in 1946, and Stalin in 1953, so it's okay for Bibliowiki.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Index:Bergey's manual of determinative bacteriology.djvuEdit

Published in Baltimore in 1957. Is this edition in PD in the US? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The Commons page claims it's not renewed, and https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals doesn't turn up a renewal for it, so I don't see why not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
It says that now, but didn't before. I have been in conversation with the person who uploaded the file. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Constitution of the People's Republic of China - AMENDMENT FIVEEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Temporarily deleted as unsourced translation to be recreated anew from [2]--Jusjih (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
The text of AMENDMENT FIVE in the Constitution of the People's Republic of China was translated by "NPC Observer" which was released under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 [3] . The official translation is not released yet.--QBear (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete the Constitution of the People's Republic of China entirely for no working source of the translation and I will restart by noting the Chinese governmental source if no objection.--Jusjih (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what you meant but the original page did provide a link to the NPC's official English website. Assuming the translations there are official translations, they are in the public domain under article 5, item 1 of the PRC Copyright Law. --Ewan0707 (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Is [4] back in 2004 your meant original page? I am reverting my added copyvio tag, but still waiting for proper license.--Jusjih (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Index:Life-Of-Pingali-Suranarya.pdfEdit

Published in India in 1941. Author died in 1947. Accordingly, was not PD-India on URAA date. Therefore, copyrighted in the U.S. for 95 years after publication. Also pinging @Rajasekhar1961:, the uploader, for comment. Hrishikes (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The author died in 1947, more than 60 years from now (2018). So I thought, it is in public domain in India. Is the copywright law say differently. Kindly clafiry. --Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but English Wikisource has to follow the somewhat inconvenient US rules. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961: It is indeed in the public domain in India at present. But it was not so on January 1, 1996, when most countries, including the USA and India, entered the Uruguay treaty of forming the World Trade Organisation. On that date, the work was copyrighted in India, so the U.S. gave cognisance to this copyright retrospectively from publication. Once copyright got thus recognised in the U.S., the term of copyright would be as per the U.S. law, i.e., 95 years from publication. English Wikisource, unlike the Indic ones, follows U.S. laws only. So current PD-India status has no value here; the status in 1996 determines the issue. Hrishikes (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
So we can work on the books published before 1923. Does that mean we have to remove it from English wikisource.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
That's the issue we are discussing. Let's see what others say. Hrishikes (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree this was not PD in India on the URAA date: according to w:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights, books by authors who died after 1941 are 60 pma. There's no US renewal in the Stanford database so it could be PD in the US if published in the US within 30 days of publication in India. However I see no evidence of that, so   Delete. BethNaught (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

TetrabiblosEdit

This work is identified as translated by "J. M. Ashmand", which seems to be the result of copying from a website that makes that claim.

However, the text seems to be the translation by Author:Frank Egleston Robbins for the Loeb Classical Library. The date I have for that text is 1940, though it might have been published earlier.

Can I get confirmation of my suspicions? This may need to be deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems like the advertisement and proem is from Ashmand's, then it restarts with the proem of Robbins' through to the end of the text, judging from some randomly selected passages. Prosody (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
This is volume 435, first published in 1940. The start of Book 2 is the same, so presumably it's mostly or completely derived from the Loeb. I don't see copies available online as public domain, but it was not renewed, and has no copyright notice on the "Printed in Great Britain" 1964 edition I'm looking at. It's generally believed that all the early Loebs are PD, but IIRC, WWII complicated the both sides of the pond printing and thus the PD status. I really don't know; @Clindberg:, are you more familiar with the legal issues here?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I don't see a renewal for the Robbins work, published in 1940 apparently by Harvard University, and as an American (living in the U.S.) there are no possible URAA issues even if first published in Great Britain. So it would seem that text is in the U.S. public domain either way (Ashmand's translation being from 1822). I don't think that WWII would have any bearing. There may have been some forgiveness for renewals which needed to be filed during the war, but those would have all been pre-1923 works in the first place, and the original publication appears to have been in the U.S. (before the war started there) anyways. The renewal would have had to be filed by Robbins' estate in 1967 or 1968. It appears Robbins lived from 1884 - 1963. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Do we have a page for clean-up? This text does look copyright-free, but is a mix of sources and needs some work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thailand PD Exempt and speechesEdit

Do speeches by government officials fall under the auspices of {{PD-TH-exempt}}? According to the banner, it applies to:

  1. News of the day and facts having the character of mere information which is not a work in literary, scientific or artistic domain
  2. Constitution and legislations
  3. Regulations, by-laws, notifications, orders, explanations and official correspondence of the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units
  4. Judicial decisions, orders, decisions and official reports
  5. Translation and collection of those in (1) to (4) made by the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units

I'm looking at Teachers' Learning in a Changing World (1996) by the Thai Minister for Education. There's no indication of where this speech was given, or of the copyright status of the translation. That aside, assuming that the translation is fine, I can't tell if it is covered appropriately by this license.

It's clearly not news, constitution, or legislation, so (1) and (2) are off the table. Nor is it judicial, so (4) is out. The question is then if this counts as a "notification" or "explanation" or "official correspondence" of the Minister, nor am I sure how to go about figuring it out officially.

-- Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mukkakukaku: I have no idea, but I'd wager that speeches don't count. It might depend on how the transcription of the speech was first published. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Index:The Philadelphia Negro A Social Study.djvu potentially copyrighted sectionEdit

See my concern raised on its talk page. It seems that the introduction is probably still in copyright. How should we deal with this? Mathmitch7 (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You are correct. The Introduction, which covers pages ix–xliv, was written by E. Digby Baltzell and has its own copyright (including this express notice from the colophon: “Introduction by E. Digby Baltzell, Copyright 1967 by Schocken Books Inc.” U.S. copyrights in 1967 works were subject to automatic renewal under the 1992 CRA, so Prof. Baltzell’s essay will presumably remain under copyright until 2062 (absent further legislative alterations to the term of protection).
The way we have dealt with such problems previously (for example, in The Pentagon Papers) is to upload a new version of the source file from which the copyrighted content has been removed, and to mark the affected pages with {{text removed}} during proofreading. It’s not elegant, but it avoids legal trouble. Tarmstro99 13:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

File:The Murder on the Links.pdfEdit

The book The Murder on the Links is now fair game. However, this work has a modern cover and modern notes that need to be removed. There's also no need to transcribe it; the PDF was produced from an ePub and the raw text could be pulled directly from the file. In general, it's better if we use US works published before 1989 and better 1978, because then the lack of a more modern copyright notice would put any new material or edits into the public domain. If not, usually we're going to have to drop the cover and any new notes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree that this copy is outside of our bounds because of the 2011 copyright notice to HarperCollins—who didn't exist as a company until 1990. Need to find a scanned first edition to proofread. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Also Index:The Murder on the Links.pdf which someone apparently started to transcribe in good faith (sigh) :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
This edition of the book dates to 1984. The copyright notice states that it "contains the complete text of the original hardcover edition," just set in a new typeface. It's also freely available in Google Books, which lists the copyright date as 1923. I don't know if it'd be useful to you folks, but wanted to point it out. 173.80.109.236 00:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that actually works. Anything newer would have no copyright because there's no proper copyright notice on the post-1923 material. I've uploaded it as File:Agatha Christie-The Murder on the Links.pdf.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The cover design, however, may be under copyright. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
It was published in the US without proper copyright notice, so it should be PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a clear copyright notice on the back of the title page, stating "All rights reserved", and credit for the cover design. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The copyright notice says "Copyright 1923 by Dodd, Mead and Company. Copyright renewed 1950, Agatha Christie Mallowan." If it applies to the cover, then it expired in 2019. If it doesn't apply to the cover, then it had no proper copyright notice. The US Copyright Office on the Jaws cover emphasizes the importance of having the correct name, and neither the name of the publisher or cover designer is mentioned in the notice. The Copyright Compendium III says "note: Using an antedated notice in an anonymous work, pseudonymous work, or work made for hire may affect the term of the copyright if the work was first published in the United States between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989. In such cases, the term is computed from the year of publication that appears in the notice, rather than from the actual year of first publication." If this is not a work made for hire, it seems highly unlikely (as per the Jaws decision) that the copyright notice includes the cover.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Work by Communist Party of ChinaEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Please talk at zh:Wikisource:写字间#就中国共产党文件收录问题的讨论 and ask me as needed.--Jusjih (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC) (your cultural bridge to East Asia)
Since it has been long unclear to many if the works by Communist Party of China is copyrightable, I find it necessary to seek clarification and establish consensus. While CPC may hold copyright to some of its works, those should not include orders, and any document released publicly by CPC. Under US copyright law, do we consider Edict of CPC as Edict of Government given the status quo of Chinese politics? Considering article 5 of Copyright Law of PRC, do we consider some works by CPC as "other documents of legislative, administrative or judicial nature;"? After the 2018 constitution amendment, the party leadership is written in, does that mean to copyright works by CPC would be unconstitutional in its nature?Viztor (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Please talk about this on Chinese Wikisource Scriptorium first.--Jusjih (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Works linked from Author:Sukavich RangsitpolEdit

All the works currently linked from Author:Sukavich Rangsitpol are claimed to be in the public domain due to Thai copyright law. That's not so.

In general, I do not think it is appropriate to call a minister the author of every policy his ministry produces under his tenure, but that's not a copyright issue. Huon (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

  Comment see also the additional discussion listed above #Thailand PD Exempt and speeches --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The Tremendous EventEdit

I think we can import this text from Wikilivres. The 1924 publication available there was not the first one. You can find a 1922 US publication in HathiTrust, so its US copyright seems to be expired. It is also PD in UK as both author and translator died more that 70 years ago. Any comments? Ankry (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

AFAICS the text history in Wikilivres suggests that it was edited somewhere else by Yann and imported there, but I cannot find any evidence that it was ever present in Wikisource. Ankry (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
It seems it can be copied in, but it would be better to load scans and split-and-match or reproof it from scratch.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The text on Wikilivres was imported from another source (see talk page), now dead. Yes, best would be to find the matching scan, and do a split-and-match, as it was alreayd proofread. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Since we have no copy, it would be better to proofread from the scan than to do a match-and-split. Match-and-split often introduces deviations from the text that are harder to spot. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

ICD-11 MMSEdit

The World Health Assembly that is happening this week has endorsed the final draft of ICD-11 MMS for use in member countries from 1 January 2022. Shortly after the announcement of the endorsement, this page was created. At present it is a simple list of chapter titles. However, based on the pdf at this link the WHO will need to license the text to us before we can host it. Although the WHO is a part of the UN, the PD-UN licenses don't carry forward because the critereon "not including public information that is offered for sale" is not met. I modified some of the text in the header 24 hours ago knowing that I would need to come back and examine in more detail. I'm aware that we do host a copy of ICD-10-CM (2010), but this is the US national modification (and an old version at that) which was licensed to the US Govt by WHO for modification and distribution. WHO is not expecting member countries to need to make national modifications of ICD-11 MMS and therefore I think it unlikely that we would be able to host this. Disclosure (and the reason I'm not deleting this outright): I use the various revisions of ICD in my day job and will be involved in developing education material for ICD-11 MMS. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I see no indications that suggest any part of ICD-11 might be covered by a compatible license, but do see a lot of evidence that the WHO do, intentionally, use copyright and licensing to maintain control and restrict uses and derivative works. In particular, they require that reusers apply for a license; differentiate (separate licenses, separate application) between commercial and non-commercial use; and prohibit sub-licensing. My conclusion is that ICD-11 MMS (and the rest of it) is not compatible with hosting on Wikisource, or any other Wikimedia project. --Xover (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Idealistic Reaction Against Science (1914).djvuEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: kept, file moved to local —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Can't be hosted on Commons, original author died in 1964, so it's not PD in the EU. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I've moved the underlying file here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Index:War and Peace.djvuEdit

See Page:War and Peace.djvu/2, Claims copyright as of 1952 to a corporate owner. 1952+95=2047

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Also the Muade translation may have been renewed in a different edition as https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/catalog/R472795 (in 1969), unless that renewal is specfically to do with a foreword as "new material". ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Having gone through the CCE records for 1952/53 I can't find a specfic mention of the edition Wikisource has scans for in terms of searching for "War and Peace" directly. The edition was clearly published in the US, and has a notice, but I am unclear as to how "international copyright" was dealt with in the US in 1952, as I'm not immediately finding the edition in the CCE.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The 1969 renewal was by Clifton Fadiman (for the foreword) and Simon & Schuster (for the editing), and not for the translation. The Maude translation itself, originally published in 1922–1923, is in the public domain in both the U. S. and in countries with copyright terms of author’s life plus 70 years or less (Louise Maude died in 1939, and Aylmer Maude in 1938). Any claims to copyright in this edition which might be taken seriously would include the image on the title page, the biographical note (pp. v–vi), the character groupings (p. xv), and the time-line (p. xvi). If needed, those can be removed (from the scan). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC).
Finally found the relevant renewal - [RE0000045404 / 1980-01-09 for A00000066673 / 1952-04-05 ] , which would cover the new material you mention. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The hyper-link appears to be incorrect. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC).
Oh it times out..Well lookup RE0000045404 with the search facility. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The scan gives no indication that it is from that series, and the renewal notice gives no indication that it includes the specific book that was scanned. Whilst it appears to match, there is no definite indication. (proper hyper-link). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC).
commons:Commons:PRP applies. Unless it's definitely confirmed as NOT copyright, the new material will have to be excised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
See - also w:Great_Books_of_the_Western_World. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
And by comparison - [5] - ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The Practice of the Love of Jesus ChristEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: replaced with free, scan-backed edition —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The original work is obviously PD (extract of a translation published in 1887), but there is a note with an email address saying that it has been "Edited and language modernized by Br. Sean, a choir monk, 2008". The article was created by Emesee (talkcontribs), now blocked, who I assume is not Br. Sean. A quick comparison with the original suggests the editing is mostly things like changing "Thou" to "You" but it's hard to tell what exactly was changed without going through page by page. It may be possible to email and ask for permission, though frankly the page is a mess anyway and a scan-backed copy from the IA file without the editing would probably be preferable. —Nizolan (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
After some Googling, the edition produced by Br. Sean also seems to have been previously hosted on IA and taken down (link). —Nizolan (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, edited version needs to be replaced with the 1887 published version —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I've started work on the scan of the original here so it can be re-created as a translations page once deleted. —Nizolan (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  Done : redirected. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Semper FidelisEdit

This page has two separate works on them:

First, who is Charles Barr and when was this written? I can't find any sources; problematically, some of the webpages are just citing us. http://www.josephsons.org/slmtc/m32298.htm actually offers texts for many of his works, but still no dates or sources.

Secondly, there was more recent words for same song. However, it says "Copyright by Don Farrar 2009 | All rights reserved | Permission granted for use in Wikipedia by Don Farrar 5/12/09". That technically doesn't even give us the right to host it, but it clearly doesn't offer the type of Free license that Wikimedia demands for works. Nor does it seem to fit in our scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: I think it's the same Charles Burr who apparently co-wrote an English stage version of The Umbrellas of Cherbourg in 1979. I managed to track down some of the lyrics on the webpage you linked to a review here (snippet view on Google Books), dated 1973, which matches that timeframe. Without further info I think it's probably a copyvio. —Nizolan (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  Delete for both works as well as Author:Charles BurrBeleg Tâl (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The Promised KeyEdit

It's a 1935 work by a Jamaican author who died in 1981, published in Jamaica which had in 1996 and has life+95 copyright laws. I don't see any way it's not copyrighted in the United States (as well as every Berne Convention country).--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  Delete per nom, along with Author:Leonard Percival HowellBeleg Tâl (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know about deleting the Author page; there's potentially some pre-1923 work that's hostable (and Jamaica is an Anglophone country and Howell wrote in English, so no translation worries) and it's only 12 years until this work is PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)