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'

The Apostle and the Wild Ducks and The Spice of Life and Other Essays

Two collection of essays by G. K. Chesterton (1874–1936), published in 1975 and 1964. The ones in the latter are asserted (in the notes field) to have been never previously published. The other has no similar note.

My head isn't cooperating just now, so I'm dropping them here for help. We need to check the status of these, especially the allegedly unpublished ones, and update the listing. I suspect most of these are PD, including some of the ones currently tagged as being in copyright. It'd be nice to get these cleaned up properly. Xover (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• As collections, they should be deleted eventually, although they should be kept for now to facilitate copyright research on the individual essays. The note in The Spice of Life and Other Essays says, “None of them has appeared in a collection before.” They have, however, appeared in periodicals before. For example, the first essay in that collection, “Sentimental Literature”, first appeared in The Speaker for July 27, 1901. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Aha! Yes, that makes it even more likely these are mostly PD. Xover (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Collections have their own copyright, and having the table of contents and links to the individual essays here is probably too much. We can have the individual essays here, but not reproduce their headings and orderings.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Meh. Collection copyrights are dumb. :-(

Anybody made any progress on identifying source of original publication for these, or alternate (PD) collections to which we could source them? Xover (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Xover: “A Sermon on Cheapness,” The Speaker, March 29, 1902. The top of this page lists the sources, which are presumably correct. A lot of his articles were printed in the Daily News, as detailed in G.K. Chesterton at the Daily News. These stories should be listed on his Author: page, moved to top-level pages, and migrated over when sources can be found. Quite a bit of The Speaker is on Internet Archive, for example. After this, the collections can be deleted, as they are copyrighted. As for alternate collections, these all seem to be short pieces not previously published in book form, which is why they show up in collections. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: Thank you! Xover (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The Apostle and the Wild Ducks is already solved and deleted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• The Spice of Life and Other Essays/Fiction as Food, Part 2 was found in T. P.'s Weekly, vol. 11 (1911), but it is not absolutely the same: It is called there differently ("Novel-reading"), is divided into sections with its own titles, and above all it has a different last paragraph. So unless somebody will rework it, it will have to be deleted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• The Soul in Every Legend found in The New witness v.17-18 Jan.-Dec. 1921, but there are differences in the text. Thus, the move is not possible as the text from the weekly needs to be proofread anew.
• Cannot find The Everlasting Nights anywhere to check them. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • “The Everlasting Nights” was first published in the November 7, 1901, edition of the Daily News. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, that is stated in G.K. Chesterton at the Daily News, but the problem is that this edition seems nowhere available and so it cannot be checked. As it was shown above, many essays published in this collection were changed in comparison with the originals, and so we cannot simply move them unless they are checked against the original edition. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

    • I have been working on getting copies of Chesterton’s writings in the Daily News, but they have not been easily forthcoming. In any case, as to your point below, it is better to keep a text that to delete where, as here, there is no noticeable copyrightable difference. While these should all, eventually, be migrated, I do not believe that that is necessary to preserve them from deletion now. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

      That is really great if you plan to get the copies of the particular issues of Daily News, but I think the essays should be transcribed anew from these issues. We should not simply migrate the texts from this collection under the headings of the Daily News, because the texts in the collection often differ (sometimes more sometimes less) from the original editions in Daily News. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Aesop's Fables were published as an Introduction to V. S. Vernon Jones' translation of Aesop's fables. Imo would be better not to excerpt it from the rest of the publication. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC) There are also some differences in paragraphing and some minor typography, so it cannot be just moved/copied. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• As Large as Life in Dickens was possibly published in The Daily News, 8 February 1902, but cannot be found to be checked. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Charlotte Bronte as a Romantic was published in id=wu.89088290648&seq=61 Charlotte Brontë; 1816-1916 : a centenary memorial, but that text differs in paragraphing + various typography, including different spelling of Bronte/Brontë, so it would needs to be transcribed anew anyway.

After checking those above, I am not sure if it is worth the effort to check the rest. Imo it is not a good idea simply to move a transcription from some edition under a different title, I believe that each edition should always be transcribed separately, and so I suggest to delete the subpages too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Unless opposed, I will delete it soon. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Undelete Old New Land

The Levensohn translation (which this apparently is) was not renewed, so the text should not have been deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

After a quick look at the Stanford database, the copyright really seems not renewed. If confirmed, it can be undeleted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If you looked through Stanford and didn't find anything it was probably not renewed. A bit odd since they registered the new matter for the second edition in 1960, but… It might also be worthwhile to search the actual volumes for 1941+28 for the original registration numbers (see ei's comment in the previous discussion) just to make sure there's no quirk of spelling or category that's preventing us from finding the renewals. Xover (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment The deletion discussion is at https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?oldid=12722222#Old_New_Land it seems to have levels of research that contradicts the "not renewed". More informtion required that demonstrates that the deletion discussion was incorrect. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• No, that’s incorrect. The previous discussion revealed the same information I mention now, (including the fact of public-domain status,) and then deleted it without a reason. That’s why I started this discussion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: It was not "deleted without reason". It was deleted because the copyright discussion Billinghurst linked showed the work to have been published in 1941 and properly registered for copyright (with a registered second edition in 1960). That discussion also showed that you were mistaken about the identity of the translator. In other words, you are in this thread making a bald assertion in contradiction of the previous discussion, spicing it up with implied criticism of the closing admin (which happened to be me this time, but could have been anyone), giving no details of the research you've done, and don't even link to that previous discussion that you only after being challenged reveal to be most of your implied argument.

  In future, please consider making requests like this in a more structured and complete way. If you are requesting undeletion of a previously deleted text then link to any and all relevant previous discussions. If there are mistakes, confusions, missing aspects, etc. in those discussions then please point them out specifically. If you have done subsequent research please describe that research and its outcomes (especially for "absence of evidence" cases like non-renewal, it's critical that we be able to show we have made a good faith effort to identify any possible copyright). And please frame the undeletion request itself neutrally and assuming good faith (no sniping at the closing admin please): if you have complaints about anyone involved they can be raised on a user talk page, WS:S, or WS:AN, but WS:CV (or WS:PD) is not the place for that.

  Or to put it slightly more succinctly: if you want to persuade someone of something, it's usually more effective to make a persuasive argument than to complain of their failure to read your mind. Xover (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Xover: I will try to respond to your aspersions in order. It was “deleted without reason”; the rationale simply stated that it was a copyright violation, without addressing at all the strong evidence against such a claim raised during the discussion. Einstein95’s research in that discussion, which you specifically thanked, found the proper source for the discussion (the identified source, which I had discussed, was of a different work). The discussion showed a publication in 1941, which had a copyright notice but no renewal. I was not mistaken; the mistake originated in a different Web-site, which was (I believe) the original source of our text. I am not contradicting the former discussion; I created this discussion so that the result of the previous discussion could be implemented. I started this discussion to resolve the error involved in improperly closing the original discussion; of course that would imply something against the dignity of the closing administrator. There is no additional research to be done; all of the research necessary to be done in reference to this work was already done in the original discussion. I don’t know why it would be necessary for me to find the discussion for another user; it is directly referenced in the deletion log. In the course of making an undeletion request, I seek to provide all necessary information; but there is nothing for to add when (as here) I merely reference the previous discussion and the incorrect closure of said discussion. Again, there is no “subsequent research” which would supplemental to my argument; all of the information was available at the time of the original discussion. I don’t think it’s important to discuss the closing administrator at all; merely the incorrect closure which was done. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Nothing found in the volumes of the Catalogue of Copyright Entries for 1968 and 1969 (i.e. 1941+27 and 1941+28) either. The work can be renewed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Index:Southampton water treatment plant, 1969 annual operating summary (IA SOUTHAMPTONWATER00SNSN19765.ome).pdf

My question here, really, goes to how devolved Crown copyright is in Canada. This report was made by the government of Ontario, or some part of it, and includes a specific notice of Ontario’s Crown copyright (with a no-commercial-use restriction) on the first blank page. The license template states that this is free for use in the United States because Canada has pledged not to enforce Crown copyright in the United States in works with restored copyrights under the URAA. However, I am not sure if this pledge (again, on behalf of Canada) binds Ontario (or any province); if the Crown copyright truly vests in Ontario, as the notice in this PDF would seem to indicate, then Canada, I believe, has no power to pledge nonenforcement. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting question. My immediate inclination would be to take that statement at face value. It has no obvious red flags of copyfraud or misunderstanding of copyright, and looks well-thought out. Canadian provinces are somewhat more autonomous, and their relationship to "the Crown" more notional, than typically found in the UK (Ireland and Scotland being the obvious exceptions). It's not something I've ever had cause to research, so I could well be wrong, but nothing I actually do know makes me immediately question that statement. Xover (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Provincial crown copyright is held by the King's Printer for Ontario, not Public Works and Government Services Canada, so I am inclined to agree that this template cannot be assumed to apply to provincial or territorial works. And in cases with unclear or ambiguous copyright, our usual practice is to  Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The King's Printer presumably could grant a US release via OTRS as well for works with expired crown copyright. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I suggest TE(æ)A,ea. to raise the question in Commons, because 1) if the work is not in the Public Domain in the US, it should not be present in Commons either, and 2) there we are more likely to receive opinions from people conversant in Canadian copyright. Or, I can do it myself, although I am not sure if I am able to explain the problem well enough. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I have raised the question at Commons too, see here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Lehrer's translations where original would be under copyright: followup

Followup to Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2020#Lehrer's translations where original would be under copyright:

• "Tout va très bien, Madame la Marquise" was released in 1935, so it's under US copyright until 2031 (p.m.a. 70 protection until 2069).
• "Les Bourgeois" was released in 1962, so it's under US copyright until 2058 (p.m.a. 70 protection until 2049).
• "Juca" was released in 1966, so it's under US copyright until 2062 (author still living).
• "Bom Tempo" was released in 1968, so it's under US copyright until 2064 (author still living).
• The following pages should be deleted, and the corresponding pages in the PDF should be redacted + removed from file history:
  • Page:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf/2
  • Page:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf/3
  • Page:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf/8
  • Page:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf/9
  • Page:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf/10
  • Page:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf/44
  • Page:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf/90

—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at "Juca" (scan page 44). I agree that the Portuguese lyrics are under copyright, and they should be redacted. And I agree that a translation of them would be under copyright as well, but the Lehrer lyrics for "Juca" are not a translation. A few phrases match, but the majority of it seems to be a rewrite using the spirit and meter, but not the meaning or words. Here is a quick comparison between the original (with translation) and Lehrer's version of the same section:

Portuguese lyrics	Translation	Lehrer's lyrics
O seu luar Virou chuva fria A sua serenata Não acordou Maria.	Your moonlight Turned into freezing rain; Your serenade Did not awake Maria.	Outside the shops ⁠Along that street in Rio, ⁠He tried to get the cops ⁠To make the act a trio.

As you can see from this example, Lehrer's lyrics are unrelated to the content of the original lyrics, and therefore will not be under copyright. So the Lehrer lyrics, as far as I can judge are not a translation and therefore original to him. Therefore, it is only the foreign-language text that should be redacted from the scan. Nothing else needs to be deleted or removed except for any transcription of the copyrighted foreign-language text, which not all the pages have done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey:: On the other hand:

French lyrics	Translation (machine)	Lehrer's lyrics
Allô, allô, James, quelles nouvelles Absente depuis quinze jours, Au bout du fil je vous appelle Que trouverai-je à mon retour?	Hello, hello, James, what news Absent for a fortnight, At the end of the line I'll call you What will I find when I return?	Hello, hello, James? Tell me, what's new? I've been away two weeks or so, And that is why I'm calling you For any news that I should know.

The still-copyrighted foreign lyrics certainly need to be redacted. But without diving in deep I think making a call on the English lyrics is going to be really tough. They are unquestionably derivative works of the foreign-language originals, so I think our default assumption must be that they are covered by the original's copyright, and then only for cases where we actively verify that the lyrics are as unconnected as in your example we can accept it. This French example is essentially straight translation, but it could be as extreme an example as the Portuguese one with most of the texts somewhere in-between. It needs detailed and case-by-case analysis is, I guess, what I'm saying. --Xover (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I've checked both Portuguese songs, and in those situations, Lehrer's lyrics are largely unconnected to the originals, except where a short phrase might be carried over to allude to the original. I am not skilled enough with French to address those lyrics. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the same goes for "The Bourgeoisie", e.g.:

French lyrics	Literal translation	Lehrer's lyrics
Jojo se prenait pour Voltaire Et Pierre pour Casanova Et moi, moi qui étais le plus fier Moi, moi je me prenais pour moi	Jojo thought he was Voltaire And Pierre, Casanova And I, who was the proudest, I thought I was was me	Pierre thought he was Casanova, Jojo, Voltaire and Debussy, And I, who always was the proudest, I imagined I was—me!

—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 16:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that only those lyrics where it has been verified that they are unconnected to the original can be kept. So if anyone makes such a research and compares literal translations of full originals (i. e. not just excerpts as in the examples above) with Lehrer's translations of the lyrics, then a list of lyrics to be spared from deletion can be made. The rest will have to be deleted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to do this for the French songs. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Portal:Toodyay Letters

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Letter by William Sykes jr. deleted as potentially copyrighted, the rest kept. However, it cannot stay in the portal NS, and needs to be moved to main NS.

I started splitting these letters into their own works. However, I am suspicious about their copyright status, for two reasons:

1. They are tagged as {{PD-Australia}}, but most of them were written in the US
2. They are manuscripts, and weren't published until 1959.

Here is the history of these documents:

Sykes may have remained a historically insignificant character, if not for the discovery in 1931 of a collection of letters written to him by his wife. The letters were found in a crevice during the demolition of old police buildings at Toodyay, and handed in to the Royal Western Australian Historical Society, which lodged them with the State Archives of Western Australia. Many years later, the social historian Alexandra Hasluck rediscovered the letters and researched Sykes. The results of her research were published as her 1959 book Unwilling Emigrants.

—

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

UK, not US surely ? I don't know if that makes a difference. -- Beardo (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I guess it would have been the UK. I'm not sure where I got the idea that they were from the US lol —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

As manuscripts, they're clearly PD-UK and PD-Australia. I assume they were never published with permission of the estate, so they would have been legally unpublished in the US until 2002 and thus went into the public domain under life+70. So they should be fine, if we can find a source that's usable, which could be Unwilling Emigrants if the text wasn't edited or if they were reproduced as facsimiles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Several of the letters come from https://catalogue.slwa.wa.gov.au/record=b1711183~S2# -- Beardo (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I was assuming they were all from his wife; if she was 20 when she married in 1853, that puts here at 120 in 1953, so clearly life+70. Portal:Toodyay Letters says Myra Sykes (c. 1833–1893), though her author page does not, so she's clear. His son, if he was born in 1865, and lived to 100 in 1965, which would be PD in Australia, but not UK or US. If she did get permission to print the letters, then they would be in copyright in the US until 95 years from 1959.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The 95 years from 1959 is because of the 50 years from 1959 for posthumous + 20 publication in the UK meaning it was copyrighted on the URAA date, correct? MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

If I understand it right, we can close the discussion with the result of most letters being in the PD, with the exception of the letters by William Sykes Junior which might have been restored by the URAA and so should not be kept here under precautionary principle. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

F. R. Benson's Richard II

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

Currently unsourced, but the text is available on Google Books, as part of a collection of essays first published in 1984 and republished in 2015. The copyright page claims All rights reserved for the entirety of the book, although it confirms that the text was first published in 1899. Is the work still in the public domain, or has something happened to it and it is now a copyvio? Thanks for any help you can provide. Cremastra (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra: The collection is protected by copyright, but the original essay's copyright has expired. We can re-source this to either a scan of the Manchester Guardian for December 4th, 1899 (where it was first published), or to the first reprint in a book in The Manchester stage, 1880–1900 (1900). UK newspapers are hard to find scans for, and newspapers in general are hard to transcribe with our tools, so the book is probably the best bet. Xover (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The essay as published in The Manchester stage, 1880–1900 is substantially different, so this resourcing is not possible. Did not find the Manchester Guardian scans for December 4th, 1899. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

"Copenhagen Document" (1990)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept as {{PD-EdictGov}}.

This can be found online in a few places ([1], [2]) but there's no indication it has been released into the public domain, so I assume the copyright holder is still the OSCE. Cremastra (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It is a little complicated because as mentioned it is available both at the (Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, a part of the US Government) and the OSCE which is the successor to the (Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe). Since it was a governmental conference at the time it is unclear whether the copyright was owned by the governments or the conference and then transitioned. If it is part of the US Government it is in the PD in the US. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The GPO lists Congress as the author: https://catalog.gpo.gov/F/XHD8EBQQYPDVIT7JSR8LRGN7JFUNDA1L27NJ578YI7ESKLD23Y-02849?func=full-set-set&set_number=001000&set_entry=000001&format=999 MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Keep sourced to this scan: https://books.google.com/books?id=jEKASGidb8MC as a US government work. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

What would be the reasoning for considering the conference qua conference to be a legal entity capable of itself being the author of a work for copyright purposes? The straightforward interpretation would be that its products are a joint work of the participants, (including any non-government entities iff any were present). And if the work in a practical sense was the product of the conference, why would we consider it to be authored by just one arbitrarily picked participating government for copyright purposes? Xover (talk) 08:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The reason is that the US Government is relevant for US copyright which is relevant for Wikisource. Presumably there could be a UK version that might have Crown Copyright in the UK but that wouldn't be able to be asserted against the US. A book might have US and UK rights owned by different publishers and with different copyright statuses, picking the US status isn't arbitrary it's required by our polices. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not following. We're not talking about which jurisdiction applies (that's the US, by policy), we're talking about who was the author of the work for the purposes of copyright. That a work may have multiple geographically-exclusive licensing deals does not affect its actual authorship or copyright status (and in any case is unlikely to be pertinent here). Xover (talk) 14:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The authors are presumably the representatives of the various governments, so for the US Jim Baker / Steny Hoyer / Max Kampelman, Denmark Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, etc. just as for this The Jeddah Communique: A Joint Statement Between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is its Joe Biden and Mohammed bin Salman, but no one is suggesting that what year Biden's death happens is relevant. I would expect that the US Government would have the US copyright in such situations, not Mohammed bin Salman in his personal capacity. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it would be a joint work of the US government and the Saudi government (personal monarchies make that a little more complicated, but let's for the sake of argument pretend Saudi Arabia is somewhere with a slightly less medieval system of government) and both would hold the copyright together to the degree they are capable of holding copyright (no for the US due to {{PD-USGov}}, but probably yes for Saudi Arabia and any number of other countries). Unlike {{PD-EdictGov}}, {{PD-USGov}} is not "transitive": other governments' copyrights are valid in the US (through Berne etc.; and keep in mind that the US government can hold copyright on works in other jurisdictions, so long as that jurisdiction doesn't have a transitive government works exemption). Xover (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That is the point of discussion here: Is the copyright split (the US Government having exclusive control in the US, the Saudi Government having exclusive control in Saudi) or joint (the US Government and the Saudi Government both have copyright in each). I would think that the US Government would tend towards exclusive control within the US relying on agreements around classification when it wants to restrict in other countries rather than copyright. There may be case law around exactly as you say, the US trying to enforce copyright in other jurisdictions and vice versa for such joint work, IANAL. I would tend to see this like many joint commercial ventures where for example a US and a UK publisher both are involved in the creation as a joint venture, and leave with sole ownership respectively in each country, but of course that is generally more explicit than governments. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a potential argument of it being a {{PD-EdictGov}} because it has a legislative component, if the same legislators brought the text up for a vote (they may have) it would follow under it or it is incorporated into a resolution by reference, etc. MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm with Xover here. The question of authorship comes before the question of copyright status. If non-U. S. government authors share ownership, PD-USgov does not apply. -Pete (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Ownership is exactly the question here. Who owns the US copyright of a meeting at the White House between Biden and anyone not in the US government at the oval office? Is the contract between DoD and a defense company owned by the company? Etc. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman: Is your position that the each government has the right to make copies or license the content, independent of the other governments party to the agreement? If so, this is a new notion to me, but in the case of contracts it makes intuitive sense, in terms of accountability/enforceability. Every party to a contract should be able to distribute the document to others, in order to ensure that its terms are being met. Do I understand you right? -Pete (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: Sort of. My position is that when it says "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government" that means that when a DoD lawyer sits down to negotiate a contract with say Boeing when the document is fixed it becomes a US Government work and is not eligible, irrespective of the level of input of the Boeing lawyer. If Biden or a US Ambassador meets with Zelenskyy and drafts a statement Zelenskyy can't claim copyright in the US on the statement because Biden's/the Ambassador's statement is a US Government work. The statute doesn't say solely produced or without any non-governmental copyright etc. Now if after the meeting Zelenskyy makes his own statement, that is his / the Ukrainian government's own work so it is eligible irrespective of the level of input Biden/the Ambassador, it doesn't magically become a US Government work merely because Biden has a joint authorship claim. Authorship comes first of course, to be a government work it needs to be authored by a US government employee, but the statute isn't merely about authorship eligibility, it is about works. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

So, I see three overarching/intersecting issues at play:

1. US gov is a co-author and therefore a (co-?)owner of the work
2. US law declares its own works PD in the US
3. Wikisource policy cares only about US copyright

Seems like the sticking point is in the connection between 1 and 2. I'm backing off any strong opinions, at this point just trying to follow along. -Pete (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that is that basically correct. Just that the definition of a "work of the United States Government" is a "work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." So it's not quite authorship and not quite ownership. It is certainly possible to read that as "work prepared by only an officer ..." or to read that as to not apply to going to a meeting and agreeing to a joint text, IANAL, maybe that was explored in case law, etc. but my take is that going to a meeting with someone, working back forth on an agreed text, and leaving with a document meets that statute definition of prepared. Other speeches at the conference are not covered, if the US packed up and left and the others agreed on a document without the US it wouldn't be covered, etc. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I could see a claim that these all are derivative works of unpublished draft texts which are not US government works and so eligible for copyright protection under the Berne convention. I have never heard the argument made about other works, e.g. that publishing a Jane Austen previously unpublished manuscript draft of Pride and Prejudice in 1990 would place it back under copyright until 2047. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the "sweat of the brow" doctrine issue of creativity/originality (see here) is important to this example. (Not following how this example connects to the Copanhagen document though.) -Pete (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Biden is giving a speech in London. White House person prepares a speech draft, great PD, prepared by a US employee. Downing Street person same time prepares a speech draft, great, has crown copyright, under Berne it is copyrighted in the US. Downing street emails draft to the White House, White House person revises the draft and incorporates the Downing Street suggestions, great document is prepared by a government employee, Biden gives speech great all done. Now if it is all in 30 days the work counts as first published in the US, the Berne copyright doesn't apply. But what if is not.... MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you're off in the weeds here. Authorship comes before ownership. Ownership can be transferred, authorship cannot. If the US government and Boing write something together it is either so interwoven that you can't distinguish who wrote what (a joint work) or each's contributions are seperable (a collaborative work). In a collaborative work each party owns the copyright for the part they contributed. In a joint work the parties jointly own the copyright in the whole work. For a joint work you need the permission of all the contributors. In a collaborative work the US government is prohibited from claiming copyright protection in the US for their contribution, but they can claim copyright in the rest of the world for it. In a joint work, since you cannot distinguish the PD-USGov contributions, PD-USGov has no real bearing (it's a noop, essentially as if the US government hadn't been involved).

A movie is a classical example of a collaborative work. The score is easily seperable from the rest of the movie. The same for a collection of short stories or essays: each essay or story can easily be separated from the whole. w:Good Omens is an example of a joint work. You can't really meaningfully separate out which bits are Gaiman's and which are PTerry's. They both own the copyright and both need to agree to license it. Now both of them have separate publishers for the US and the UK, with which they both have to sign the contract, but that just licensing (transferring some bits of the ownership). They are both still the authors for copyright purposes, retain all the rights they have not licensed away, and both enjoy the special non-transferrable "moral rights" to be recognised as the authors (and a few other things, depending on jurisdiction). Xover (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

That is the point of disagreement, in cases of joint works (as opposed to collaborative, contracted / granted or derivative where copyright transfer is required for the non Gov work):

a. The government contribution makes it a government work: e.g. "More specifically, where there has been a Government contribution in connection with the preparation of the work, e.g., use of Government time, facilities, equipment, materials, funds, or the services of other Government employees on official duties, and the subject matter of the work directly relates to or was a type involved in the employee’s field of governmental employment, then the work generally is presumed to be a “Government Work” and not available for copyright." [3] ("any work of the United States Government")

b. The non-government contribution makes it a non-governmental work ("as if the US Government hasn't been involved). I guess the example here is that US Government employees are similar to employees at an private nonprofit that says all our works are released into the public domain. I understand thinking that for a UK - Canada agreement both recognize each other's copyright under Berne, and also the US. That making it a US - UK - Canada agreement doesn't really change things that much. Or similarly that two companies entering into an agreement is similar to the two plus the US government,

I have been trying to find the basis for b. and am struggling based on the text of statute, as well as the lack of any statutory mandatory licensing back to the US Government, requiring presumably a separate agreement for the US government to use the joint work. It also seems unlikely on government intent grounds: that large swaths of DoD documents or Department of State documents are outside of US Government control and under the copyright control of foreign governments within the US (e.g. a joint US / Iran effort in the 70s would require a license in the 80s) or for the public to loose access to government creations by having the government do a joint work with someone (e.g. to an EPA cleanup plan if developed jointly with the responsible party). The idea is precisely that a commercial agreement with the US government is fundamentally different as there is now a compelling interest of the public of having access, among other things to prevent the double payment: the public pays to create it using government resources, hands it over to a public company and then pays again to license it back, that is why a CRADA (Cooperative Research and Development Agreement) is necessary for transferring the rights back when using a government lab [4], because it is decided that having the research is worth the US Government investment in the lab. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said, I think you're off in the weeds here. There is nothing magical about the government's contribution to a work. The bit you quote is about distinguishing whether a singular work was a government work or the work of the federally-employed author as a private individual. That's a separate issue. For the text in question the US contribution came from the "high representative of the US" so there's no question that their contribution was a government work. But US government contribution to a work is not contagious: the US can't claim copyright, but it doesn't nullify anybody else's copyright. And the public's interest is a matter of just precisely public access, which exists irrespective of copyright. Xover (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

If Rodgers and Hammerstein had a falling out and Rodgers refused to go along with the copyright claim out of spite, Hammerstein couldn't have filed independently a registration with the copyright office, that isn't some magic nullification. All this is saying is that if Hammerstein and a government employee made a joint work, the public interest is for the government employee to (effectively) not file (be rejecting it), rather than file and transfer the copyright to Hammerstein. Now of course the filing / claiming isn't necessary as a step, but the rejection still happens. (To be clear this should be {{PD-in-USGov}} as said we are only talking about the US status here). MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI here is the House resolution on this document which was adopted: https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/232/text, "Whereas the Copenhagen Conference on the Human Dimension (CDH) document declares that the will of the people, freely and fairly expressed through periodic and genuine elections, is the basis of the authority and legitimacy of all government;" . It was also referenced here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/37/text. From the Chairman of the CSCE at a Congressional hearing: "The U.S. and the participating states agreed at that conference to the Copenhagen Document, which included a commitment to invite observers from other participating states to observe national elections. The U.S. was a major advocate of that commitment, since the Berlin Wall had just fallen and many nations were about to hold their first real elections in decades. OSCE participating states reaffirmed this commitment at the OSCE's 1999 Istanbul Summit." But apparently I can't print what the commitments the US made unless I get permission from 60 countries, some of which no longer exist. It's a neat trick to be able to make any government policy statement not accessible by making it a joint document. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

So for example: https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/senate-bill/2532 [PL: 102-511]. Requires "adhering to the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Charter of Paris;". The Charter of Paris [5] contains "Proceeding from the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension, we will cooperate to strengthen democratic institutions and to promote the application of the rule of law." "The function of the Office for Free Elections will be to facilitate contacts and the exchange of information on elections within participating States. The Office will thus foster the implementation of paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE' (the relevant provisions are contained in Annex 1)." On the EU side, the association agreements have language like: "CONSIDERING the commitment to the implementation of commitments made in the framework of the CSCE, in particular those set out in the Helsinki Final Act, the concluding documents of the Madrid, Vienna and Copenhagen meetings, those of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, the conclusions of the CSCE's Bonn Conference, the CSCE Helsinki document 1992, the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Energy Charter Treaty as well as the Ministerial Declaration of the Lucerne Conference of 30 April 1993" http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_internation/1998/98(1)/oj . I think that it is reasonable to interpret this document as incorporated into legislation and hence eligible for EdictGov. Another example is the Istanbul Document signed by Clinton [6] . "In this respect we reaffirm our commitments, in particular under the relevant provisions of the Copenhagen 1990 Human Dimension Document, and recall the Report of the Geneva 1991 Meeting of Experts on National Minorities" MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't have the spare cycles to give that side the consideration it needs, but, yes, {{PD-EdictGov}} would seem to be one possible avenue for this document. There's currently case law that says adopting a model code into enacted code makes the model code into essentially EdictGov. Things like technical standards merely incorporated by reference are currently up in the air because there's case law from a lower court suggesting the former logic may apply to the latter situation (cue the inevitable copyright-flamewars and community split on Wikimedia projects). I don't personally think things incorporated by mere reference can "inherit" EdictGov status because the results would be obviously untenable (and courts tend to reject reasoning that leads to such results), but the waters here are very muddy until we eventually get clarification from the courts. For the Copenhagen Document though, it is possible the way and extent of its incorporation into something covered by EdictGov pushes it towards the more plausible side of the grey area there. Or not. I am very conservative on what uncertainty we should accept in such cases, so it would take quite a bit to persuade me with such an argument. Xover (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

That is why I prefer the US Government explanation, but yeah it is on the type of document, how it is incorporated as requirement, the commercial harm tests, etc. in that gray area but that is all very messy, as well as the large amount of work to dig through exactly the legislative history of the US Government and the CSCE / OSCE to find exactly the legal basis for those commitments. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless some more input appears in a short time, I will close the discussion as kept per {{PD-EdictGov}}. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Miser's Gold

This topic also applies to many (but not all) of the poems listed at Author:Robert Ervin Howard/Poetry. There is no source and no explicit claim of a free license or public domain status. After some hunting I found the poem here, but while this claims to be part of the "opensource" collection on the Internet Archive, there is no explicit license named, and the book appears to be a self-compiled work (with none of the ordinary front matter a traditional publisher would include). It does not mention copyright status or licensing on the IA page (beyond the "collection") or in the work.

My best guess is that this, and numerous other, of Howard's poems were unpublished in his short lifetime. He died in 1936. Perhaps their copyright has not been vigorously defended, and while much of his work has fallen into the public domain due to lack of copyright renewal, I believe unpublished works would not require a renewal.

When voting, please indicate whether your !vote should apply to all of Howard's poetry that was unpublished in his lifetime, as there appear to be many such poems on Wikisource. -Pete (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I now see {{PD-old-US}} which seems to address these pages. My apologies. -Pete (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: The copyright situation for Howard's works is hyper-complicated, which, in addition to his prodigious output, is why we have about a bajillion of his works in various states of insufficient copyright tagging. He wrote a massive amount of poetry in letters to a small group of friends, that was unpublished at the time of his death. There has been wrangling over his copyrights for a century, including at least two transparent land-grabs. One of those was a poetry collection published in 2002 (I'm fuzzy on the details: it's been a while) specifically to secure copyrights. It's an utter mess and means we need to do diligent research for each of his poems individually to figure out their publishing history. A lot of Howard's material is in the public domain, but a significant chunk is not, so we can make few blanket assumptions. The good news is that Howard fans have cataloged first publication info for a whole lot of these, so it's often entirely possible to come to a conclusion; it just takes some effort. Xover (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as I continued to poke around I found this discussion, which has links (including archival) to Herman's work. @Xover: would you consider the most recent revision of his document ([https://web.archive.org/web/20190715192544/http://www.robert-e-howard.org/AnotherThought4rerevised.html this one, unless there's a newer one not mentioned in that wiki discussion) authoritative for any works at all (either demonstrating that something is or is not in copyright), or merely a launch point for more authoritative research? (Note that Miser's Gold does not appear in that document, so I should probably remove the tag I added and bring that up for deletion. I'll hold off on further action till I hear back though.) -Pete (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Note, technically the unpublished works written after 1928 do not fit in the Wikisource inclusion criteria. I'm not proposing anything radical, but just noticed that; perhaps some should be deleted, or perhaps the policy needs some finessing. -Pete (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

So far as I know none of these are actually unpublished today. The issue is whether they were unpublished at the magic dates in 2002/2003 or thereabouts. Xover (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

No, indicative rather than authoritative; you need to check the claims it makes. Not least because we have access to a lot more information now (online) than what Herman had in 2007, and the applicable copyright issues are now much better understood. Xover (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling that out, that all makes sense. (I don't understand what's "magic" about 2002/03, but happy to take your word for it.) -Pete (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

In the US there are special rules for works that were unpublished at certain dates. Unpublished works created before 1978 and published between 1977 and 2003 are in copyright until the longer of pma. 70 and December 31st, 2047. If they were created before 1978 and published after 2002 they are covered by a pma. 70 copyright term. Since Howard died in 1936 any of his pma. 70 terms will have expired. Meaning that if they were unpublished on January 1, 2003 they are now public domain ({{PD-US-unpublished}}). Which is why one of the many entities vying for Howard's copyrights published several collections of his previously unpublished works in 2002: they wanted to preserve the copyright until 2047. Xover (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling it out. One by one I'm grasping the various rules about renewals... -Pete (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

According to w:Robert E. Howard bibliography (poems I–O) the poem "Miser's Gold" was published in Fantasy Crossroads #8, May 1976. So, if I understand it right, unless we have some evidence that it was published there without a copyright notice, it is copyrighted until 1976+96=2072. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The poem Cimmeria was published in The Howard Collector #7 in 1965. Unless there is some evidence it was published without a copyright notice, it is copyrighted until 1965+96=2061. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Page:NBS_Technical_Note_11176_(1983)_(IAutilityprogramsf1176dick).djvu/24

The LOMEM utility mentioned, I found the original publication - https://archive.org/details/Apple-Orchard-v1n1-1980-Mar-Apr/page/n14/mode/1up?q=LOMEM - and I can't find any notices (or as yet a registration within 5 years), Can someone here do a more detailed check? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: The work has been uploaded to Commons, which is thus also affected. Can you create a deletion request there too? You may also get there more replies. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Noted, It's only the program that's at issue , if at all. It's not included in the Wikisource Transcription obviously. The rest of the document is obvioulsy a US Gov work of the NBS/NIST. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Sons and Daughters of Saint Lucia

I see no reason why this should be PD in the US. -- Beardo (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

According to Spanish wikipedia, the author lived 1897-1985. I suppose it is possible that the words were written before 1928, and only adopted as a national anthem in 1967, but I haven't found any indication of that. -- Beardo (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

He was born in England and only arrived in St. Lucia in 1928 so that is unlikely. The more likely path is that it was published in the St. Lucia Gazette and so would fall under EdictGov. in St. Lucia on the URAA date so it would no be restored. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

If the words were written previously, would them being published in the Gazette alter their copyright status ? -- Beardo (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Possibly? Depends on how it is exactly printed, which is the problem, someone needs to go digging into the archives of law libraries for each of these national anthems and look exactly how it is adopted via law. Is it like this with it printed in an act: Government Gazette of the Republic of Namibia/321/National Anthem of the Republic of Namibia Act? or does it just mention by reference? Re the general principle, I doubt people would say that if a group proposes a constitutional amendment whose wording is then adopted that group then has a copyright claim on the country's constitution (e.g. that if the National Women's Party text of the ERA was adopted then the National Women's Party would have copyright over the US Constitution), PD-EdictGov never invalidates a copyright claim of an author then it is kind of superfluous no if it only applies to already uncopyrighted edicts? MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

As an extreme example, HMG drafts a white paper of "Secret Crimes we won't tell people about Act", claims crown copyright, parliament passes the exact text of the bill. The idea of EdictGov is that HMG doesn't have an "out" to have a secret list of crimes now protected by copyright no one can publish so you can never know about them. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• I’ve sent for Saint Lucia’s book of ordinances from that time, so I should be able to tell soon one way or another. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: Any news? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Old Bugs

This is a short story written by H. P. Lovecraft likely in 1919. It was apparently first published in 1959 in The Shuttered Room and Other Pieces, a posthumous collection of Lovecraft's works. I can't find the exact book, there's a similarly-titled book on the Internet Archive but it doesn't contain Old Bugs. There is a copyright renewal from June 1987. There's a note on Wikisource suggesting that copyright will expire in 2055, I'm not sure the basis for that. But regardless, it seems to me that as of now the copyright is in effect. -Pete (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I am sure that the mention on the author page here refers to the title story (which apparantly is more Derleth than Lovecraft). See discussion above about "The Mysterious Ship", which was also first published in that collection. The copyright on Derleth's work published in 1959 and covered by that renewal will expire in 2055. It seems that Derleth's heirs were probably not entitled to make the renewal on the pure Lovecraft items (and claiming that "H. P. Lovecraft" was a pseudonym of August Derleth wouldn't alter that). The wikipedia article on Lovecraft says "Searches of the Library of Congress have failed to find any evidence that these copyrights were renewed after the 28-year period, making it likely that these works are in the public domain. However, the Lovecraft literary estate, reconstituted in 1998 under Robert C. Harrall, has claimed that they own the rights." -- Beardo (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This is it at Google books Google Books and it contains Old Bugs on pages 76-84. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that MarkLSteadman.

The copyright situation seems complex, and I'm maybe only grasping parts of it. It seems the search mentioned at Wikipedia may have simply been insufficient to find the result I found, in which case it should be disregarded? The link may not work without re-running the search. I searched for "Shuttered Room" and scrolled through the results to find the "Derleth" entry. Its contents are pasted below:

Extended content

The Shuttered room and other pieces. By H. P. Lovecraft, pseud. of August...
Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: RE0000341797 / 1987-06-12
Renewal registration for: A00000441004 / 1959-11-17
Title: The Shuttered room and other pieces. By H. P. Lovecraft, pseud. of August William Derleth.
Copyright Claimant: April Derleth Jacobs & Walden William Derleth (C)
Basis of Claim: New Matter: new except six prev. pub. titles, The Commonplace book, The Books, The Gods, Dagon, The Strange high house in the mist, and The Outsider.
 
Variant title: The Shuttered room and other pieces.
Names: Derleth, August William, 1909-1971
Jacobs, April Derleth
Derleth, Walden William
Lovecraft, H. P., pseud.

Beardo: Your comment suggests to me that there's a somewhat delicate task of evaluating the legitimacy of (both?) Derleth's initial copyright claim, and the renewal. Is that correct? I'm not sure how to evaluate that, but want to make sure I'm at least understanding the question that needs answering. (Did Derleth really represent himself as having the name "H. P. Lovecraft," for the purpose of establishing copyright over something written by the original H. P. Lovecraft?? I'm not a lawyer, but the idea that such a maneuver could carry any legitimacy seems insane! But maybe I'm misunderstanding...) -Pete (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The book just says copyright Derleth without giving details. It was his children who claimed that Lovecraft was a pseudonym for Derleth on the renewal. I suppose that was possibly true for the stories which Derleth wrote from brief fragments, but not for the unpublished works. -- Beardo (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

So @Beardo: would you advise declaring this {{PD-US-unpublished}} with an explanation on the talk page that there was not a legal copyright attached prior to 2003? -Pete (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Based on my understanding of the publications, the works which are joint Derleth–Lovecraft works are copyrighted until 2055 because of the renewal of Derleth’s portion of the work; as joint authors, either of the two’s heirs could renew, and Derleth’s did. This renewal also covers the copyright in the collection &c. of the stories into the collection. However, if any of the works in The Shuttered Room were written only by Lovecraft, then those works were not renewed. They were copyrighted, however, and so the license tag should be PD-US-no-renewal. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Pete, Beardo (people in the discussion): I have ordered the book, and it has just come in. The book is credited to August Derleth as compiler with a copyright notice on the back of the title page saying as much. That page also lists copyrights for the six other works excluded in the renewal claim. The work includes (1) material co-authored by Lovecraft and Derleth, (2) works authored only by Lovecraft, (3) editorial material both explicitly and implicitly credited to Derleth, (4) several plates, and (5) a number of other writings about Lovecraft by other authors (neither Lovecraft nor Derleth). The renewal was by Derleth, and thus covers (1) and (3) (in addition to a compilation right in the entire work). The copyrights in (4) depends on who took the photographs, and thus cannot be determined without significant research. The copyrights in (5) would need to be renewed by the authors of those works pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(1)(C). The most difficult case is (2), which is of course the one which matters. That copyright is governed by 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(1)(B), which states in relevant part: “In the case of … any posthumous work … upon which the copyright was originally secured by the proprietor thereof … the proprietor of such copyright shall be entitled to a renewal ….” I do not believe that Derleth actually held the copyright at that time, so I do not believe that he had the right to renew them, either. In any case, I have scanned “Old Bugs” and can scan other parts of the book if desired. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Senator Christopher J. Dodd’s address to supporters after the Iowa Caucuses

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

2004 speech by a candidate for the U.S. presidency. No reason to think this was in the public domain or subject to a free license. - Pete (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per nomination. --FPTI (talk) 09:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

2007 Democratic Debate - 26 April

This page, as well as the following pages 2007 Democratic Debate - 3 June, 2007 Democratic Debate - 28 June, 2007 Democratic Debate - 26 April, 2007 Democratic Debate - 23 July, and 2007 Republican Debate - 21 October. These all appear to be transcripts of various televised debates. No reason to think they are in the public domain or subject to a free license.-- FPTI (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per nomination. -Pete (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@FPTI: Debates deleted per nomination. BTW, it seems to me that 2015 Democratic Debate - 13 October should be deleted per the same reasoning too, do you agree? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed. Thanks for finding that. --FPTI (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

2008 Republican Debate - 30 January

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

Also 2007 Republican Debate - 5 September and
2007 Democratic Debate - 12 July

As above, these appear to be transcripts of various televised debates. No reason to think they are in the public domain or subject to a free license. -Pete (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Delete at least as far as my knowledge goes, the copyright belongs to the stations etc. and not the federal government. Although on the positive side, usually Presidential candidates are already federal government employees, so maybe their words count as being in the capacity of their government activities, but I doubt it. SnowyCinema (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Point of clarification, per the {{PD-USgov}} banner, it is works of the federal government that have a special public domain status. Often, such works happen to be authored by employees or elected officials of the federal government, but that does not mean that works by said people outside their roles as agents of the government have any special status. Running for office is something incumbent officeholders may do in their role as private citizens, but not as agents of the government. -Pete (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per nomination. --FPTI (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

When Wendy Grew Up

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept as {{PD-US-no-renewal}}.

The Wikipedia page says that this play was performed in 1908, but not published until 1957. If this is accurate, this work would still be under copyright. Another page says that it was "later published in Peter and Wendy", but it is not clear how much later. --FPTI (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. So far as I can tell, the 1957 publication was not renewed, so it is in the public domain. (Also, the 1957 first-publication date does seem to be accurate.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep per Teaeaea. Relevant links: IA [7] -Pete (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • FPTI, Pete: If either of both of you are interested, here is the book: File:When Wendy Grew Up.pdf. The images are local (because they need to be cut down to size and color-corrected): File:AnAfterthought-frontis.tif, File:AnAfterthought-p13.tif, File:AnAfterthought-p15.tif, File:AnAfterthought-p19.tif, File:AnAfterthought-p23.tif, and File:AnAfterthought-p29.tif. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Weird Tales/Volume 33/Issue 11/Second Night Out

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted, copyright renewed.

This was added by an IP claiming it is a work by Frank Belknap Long published in 1933 in Weird Tales, Volume 33, Issue 11, but Volume 33 was not published in 1933 and there is no issue 11. I have therefore been unable to determine whether this is actually in public domain. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is "The Black, Dead Thing" published in October 1933 (Volume 22, issue 4). MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Volume 22, issue 4 was renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment when this is resolved, the link on Author:Frank Belknap Long added here will need to be corrected or removed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment The same IP has created The Black, Dead Thing, which is identical to the page currently under discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Scotch rhapsody

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

This poem appears to be published during, not prior to, 1929. As such I believe it will not enter the public domain until the first of next year. -Pete (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I should have said, it was published in 1929, and I haven't been able to find evidence that it was published in 1922 (as is claimed on Sitwell's author page). It may well have been, but I couldn't find it on the Internet Archive. Further research may corroborate this claim, though. -Pete (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Ugh. I'm pretty sure I was wrong, Facade appears to be a well known collection of poems, published several times prior to 1929. I hope somebody is able to find it and resolve this soon, I shouldn't have blanked the page with the {{cv}} banner so hastily. -Pete (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Confirmation that it was published in 1922. -Pete (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Noting that this page has been blanked with {{cv}} for 2.5 months, though I determined that the blanking was not necessary. I suggest unless I've missed something else, this would be an easy close, and could permit readers to view the material. -Pete (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Striking part of my comment, this is overstating it. It appears that the poem was composed in 1922, but I do not find definitive evidence that either (a) it was one of the Facade poems published that early, or that (b) it was unrevised in the 1929 edition cited by the present Wikisource page. There's some useful info on the English Wikipedia article, though the sources cited do not appear to be accessible online. If nothing else, this edition should fall into the public domain in a few months, so maybe the best thing is to wait and attach {{PD-US}} at that time. Another set of eyes would be helpful, but unless somebody is able to find an earlier published version of the poem, a definitive answer may prove elusive. -Pete (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Should be deleted as public domain status does not seem to be completely proven. I am not inclined to the waiting solution as it does not seem worth it. It is badly formatted and it seems better to transcribe it from scratch after it definitely slips into the PD (preferably together with the whole book). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Index:Property and Improperty.djvu

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

1937 work by a British author. No indication why this work was not URAA-restored. MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Confessions of an Economic Heretic

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

1938 work by the same above author, added by the same contributor. Likely URAA-restored. MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Monthly Weather Review

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Issues up to 1973 can be licenced as {{PD-USGov}}, issues up to 1976 as {{PD-US-no-notice}}.

So the Monthly Weather Review (MWR) is a peer-reviewed journal owned and published by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). However, the gained ownership of it, from the U.S. government in 1974. Publications in MWR were entirely by the U.S. government from 1873 to 1973. To access these publications though, one has to go on the AMS website and access the same as a standard peer-reviewed journal. An example is this publication from 1873.

Since it was published entirely by the U.S. government until 1973, would all publications in MWR from 1873 to 1973 be public domain, or did some copyright thing transfer to AMS in 1974? At the bottom of the website, there is a "© 2024 American Meteorological Society", but the reason I am asking is the publications up through 1973 were U.S. government ones, with the example publication above being a signed document ("Desk Copy" as wrote on the paper) from the United States War Department Office of the Chief Signal Officer. WeatherWriter (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See: [8] Pete (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

And the details page. Seems that nothing prior to 1976 had a copyright notice, those should all be in the public domain. Pete (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The banner you could apply for all issues prior to 1976 is {{PD-US-no-notice}}. I'm not aware of any reason to prefer any banner over others (the others being {{PD-USGov}} and {{PD-US}}) for the issues prior to 1974 and prior to 1929. -Pete (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:PD-American Samoa

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept.

A new contributor has created {{PD-American Samoa}} with the claim that: "American Samoa does not have any copyright laws, the copyright law of the United States only applies to works created by American Samoans in the United States, and the work is not registered for copyright protection in the United States." There are two works now bearing this template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, that seems super sketchy to me at first glance, but the template is copied directly from Commons and commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/American Samoa appears to corroborate what it says. The information there appears to date from 1993 though, so it could also be outdated. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's an article about an American Samoan trying to introduce some copyright legislation as of two years ago, so it seems this is all legit. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Heh, while I'm here, I might as well upload it: Local musician petitioning for a copyright law to protect songwriters —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It sounds sketchy because it is, imv, but I nominated the template for deletion on commons and it was kept. Prospectprospekt (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Beleg Tâl: The 1993 source is a U.S. government document, so I’ve ordered it and will scan it in eventually. The part about Title 17 specifically, though, I’ll upload locally so we can see what the government’s position is. We can then check to see whether it still holds by seeing if the Copyright Act has been amended in relevant part or if intervening Supreme Court decisions have made a difference. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• EncycloPetey, Beleg Tâl, Prospectprospekt: The source is available: The Application of Federal Laws in … American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands/Volume 2/Memorandum 17-1. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ----Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

National Weather Service - Partial not free-to-use (Question on how to deal with this)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Non-free images have to be redacted in our scans.

So the National Weather Service is a branch of the U.S. government. For majority of their publications, {{PD-USGov}} works fine. However, NWS is a weird circumstance, even the Commons has a split copyright template for their stuff: Template:PD-NWS. Basically, NWS allows the public to give them pictures. The complication is that the public is asked if the images are to be released into the public domain or not. The answer to that is yes 99% of the time. However, sometimes that answer is no and we end up with non-free-to-use images in the middle of official government publications (noting the ones that aren't free are clearly marked as not being free as well). There are several examples of this happening, but for simplicity, I am wanting to get this StoryMap, made by the NWS onto Wikisource. Out of the (50+) images in the storymap, four are not free-to-use. Other images are present that are free-to-use, but not made by NWS, as they were given to NWS to be published into the public domain.

The whole thing is actually a neatly-made "printable" PDF, which split the pages nicely. However, how would this work, given the few non-free images. We can't say the whole thing is ineligible, as that would be directly saying publications by the US government are not eligible, as NWS did make the storymap as part of their official duties. Should those non-free images just get blacked out prior to uploading to the Commons? WeatherWriter (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Noting: This discussion has also been linked to the Commons' Copyright Noticeboard since this involves them as well as Wikisource. WeatherWriter (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• WeatherWriter: The usual practice in such a case is to redact the images (or text, as the case may be), preferably before the file is uploaded. The removed images are then marked with {​{image removed}​} in the transcription. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

British War Aims

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Kept as {{PD-EdictGov}}.

It wasn't clear if this was a speech given under 'official' circumstances, as opposed to an address given at a private function. Eden (British) died in 1977. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It was published as Command Paper 6289 to Parliament (Vol. III, pg. 47). MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.. Is that scanned? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I did a brief look and could not find a scan. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It may be available here: https://about.proquest.com/en/products-services/uk-parliamentary-papers/ MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

So, unless there is some new input, I will tag the work as {{PD-EdictGov}} and close it as kept. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Copyright Implications of Trump v. United States

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Discussion closed.

Today's decision seems to take a very broad view of what counts as presidential official acts: "Presidential conduct—for example, speaking to and on behalf of the American people, ... certainly can qualify as official even when not obviously connected to a particular constitutional or statutory provision", "For these reasons, most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities." Presumably, if an act is official it is covered by {{PD-USGov}}, although the decision states clearly: "The analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging." I am curious how others here think this guidance applies to content such as convention speeches which we have historically considered outside of official responsibilities, although I suspect we will need to wait for additional guidance from the courts. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• “A work of the United States Government is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government ….” 17 U.S.C. § 101. The President is neither an “officer” nor an “employee of” the government; he exists separately from both processes. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  That also is under discussion recently, K&D LLC v. Trump Old Post Office, "The court agreed, stating this statute permitted President Trump, in his capacity as an "officer... of the United States", to remove the state suit relating to duties of his office to federal court." [9] MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Was the album material for Ere's 'Olloway renewed?

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

No copyright notice on the work.

I know the recordings on Ere's 'Olloway (1958, Internet Archive identifier: lp_eres-olloway_stanley-holloway-the-loverly-quartet) are still in copyright, but the album cover and liner notes are interesting in their own right. Could someone check if the album material was renewed, and link where they looked so I know how to search for this information in the future? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 15:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• CalendulaAsteraceae: There is no copyright notice, so no renewal could have occurred. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Good point, and thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 14:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Morse Code for Radio Amateurs

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Public domain status not proven.

This pamphlet was published 1957 (found on the second to last page) in London, by Margaret Mills, the first woman allowed/drafted/invited commissioned into the Brits Signal Corps. I have not found birth or death notice for her. I have no idea if this is allowed here and if so, how to license it. IA thinks its okay but doesn't state the reason.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It would be OK if it was simultaneously published in the US without copyright notice/renewal, but almost certainly not otherwise. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 06:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree, unfortunately the work seems still copyrighted in the US. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Letters to Barack Obama

The following letters addressed to Barack Obama do not seem to fall under any open license:

• Toni Morrison's letter to Barack Obama
• Ralph Nader's letter to Barack Obama
• Nicolas Sarkozy's letter of congratulations to Barack Obama
• Tarja Halonen's letter of congratulations to Barack Obama
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter of congratulations to Barack Obama
• Tamil Youth Organisation of Australia's letter of congratulations to Barack Obama
• Chuck Norris's letter to Barack Obama
• Willie Nelson's letter to Barack Obama
• Nancy Killefer's letter to Barack Obama

All seem to be written by private citizens or foreign dignitaries. Packer1028 (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter of congratulations to Barack Obama was labeled {{PD-Iran}}; is there any reason to doubt that it was first published in Iran and thus is out of copyright in the US?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we cannot just suppose it was first published in Iran and not republished in the US within 30 days without any tangible evidence. Unless such evidence is provided, we have to consider it potentially copyrighted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete for Morrison, Nader, TYO, Norris, Nelson.

No opinion yet (haven't researched) on others. Sarkozy was in office in 2008, I don't know whether his letter would have been an official communication and if so whether it would be in the public domain. -Pete (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

McCain Addresses Boston College Convocation

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Deleted. Public domain status not proven.

This item appears to be a copyright violation. See reasoning and discussion here. Pete (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 07:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

First Affidavit of Steve Pitkin and Second Affidavit of Steve Pitkin

As we know, public record does not imply public domain. Is there any reason to consider these PD? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete: I don't see any. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 15:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Undelete Translation:Salvador Allende's Last Speech

Alright, I'll just jump right to the issue. Why can't we view it? Can we explain this confusing issue or resolve it ASAP? Thank you in advance. NSWM1911 (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• NSWM1911: I’ve taken the liberty to change the title to the title we used before deleting it. The discussion is here. The basic idea is that the speech is not an “edict of government,” which would be an exception under U.S. law; Chile does not have a “government works” exception; and the fact that the translation is freely licensed is irrelevant because the original work is still copyrighted. The discussion was closed by Xover, who is generally knowledgeable about such topics. As to my opinion, while I believe that Xover’s phrasing of the “edicts of government” doctrine is unduly limiting (some Presidential works, like Executive Orders, certainly count), I generally agree that, absent some unusual circumstance seemingly not present here, an executive’s speech is not an “edict of government.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

FOIA Request DOC-NOAA-2019-002194 - Hurricane Dorian-Related Records, Interim Document Release - 0.7.2809.35180

The description of this page states: "As part of the United States Freedom of Information Act, this email's contents were released into the public domain, following a U.S. citizens request for it to be made public."

Now I am no expert on American law, but I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. According to this page, "Information provided in response to an FOI request or listed in Publication Schemes, may be subject to copyright protection. The supply of documents under FOI does not automatically give the person or organisation who receives the information a right to reuse the documents in a way that would infringe copyright."

It seems to me that this is a Green Eggs and Ham situation, and this document is copyvio.

Courtesy ping, @WeatherWriter: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on the U.S. Justice Department on the FOIA copyright guidelines, it seems like the U.S. Government conceals copyrighted information under Exemption 3 or 4, and info that isn’t exempt is published. I could be wrong on that. This was released by NOAA, under a NOAA URL. Per the NOAA disclaimer, “The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public.” Since this is hosted entirely on the NOAA web servers (www.noaa.gov…) & since it isn’t marked as being copyrighted, this would be in the public domain as far as I can tell. WeatherWriter (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Note that per the discussion at [[Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Kamoliddin_Tohirjonovich_Kacimbekov's_statement]], this may not be hostable as a standalone work but only as a subwork of the whole 100 document release: https://www.noaa.gov/foia/reading-room/hurricane-dorian-related-records. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I would argue this is different. For those, it appears there wasn’t a direct government disclaimer for it. Here, we have a direct statement that things hosted on their web servers/web sites are in the public domain unless specifically annotated otherwise. I do not see any clear annotations to the contrary, so this specific document would be PD. WeatherWriter (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, but you see that document release is only a subwork of the whole NOAA website :p —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

That is a true fact. However, the disclaimer does not say whole works or whole NOAA website. Just that things hosted on the web servers and web sites are free to use. That is on the web servers of NOAA. No indication that only whole works are PD and not subpages by themselves. WeatherWriter (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry - this tangent about whether it's a subpage or a whole work has nothing to do with whether it's PD :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a good indication that this work is PD after all. We'll need to update the discussion page to say that it's PD because of this disclaimer, rather than because it was released under FOI. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter hold up a sec — the disclaimer you linked to, applies to National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites, but the document in question is on the NOAA website, not the NWS website, so I don't see how it applies here. From what I can tell, the NWS is only a part of the NOAA, so I don't see how the NOAA website could be construed as a NWS web site. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The statement in the FOIA notice (as to copyright) is incorrect. However, Gibbs appears to be an employee; as an employee, her e-mail is a work of the U.S. government, and is in the public domain for that reason. As to the separate-work issue, the e-mail is one work (even though included in a longer FOIA release), and can be hosted separately for that reason. (In any case, that’s an issue for proposed deletions, not copyright discussions.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Larsen vs. Hawaiian Kingdom 2000-05-22

This is not a legal document at all, but an arbitral document. Even if it were legal, it is the equivalent of a complaint in a civil case, which is not the work of any government nor an edict thereof. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nomination. Precedent was set in "Copyright status of court submissions" and "DNC_Lawsuit_against_Russia,_Wikileaks_et_al..?" that court fillings/submissions by private lawyers are copyright works to the lawyers. The same would apply to submissions to arbitral boards and other tribunals or in the case of this document the Permanent Court of Arbitration. DraftSaturn15 (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete Pet the statement on the PCA webpage: "This website and its Content are subject to the PCA’s copyright, and may not be used, translated, or adapted for commercial purposes without prior permission from the PCA." For reference the case is here: https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/35/. 23:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC) MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The People of the State of California vs Sylvia Celeste Brown and Kensil Dalzell Brown

A complaint in state court, not a judgment (in federal or state court) nor a document to which PD-USGov applies. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Per w:en:Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States there may not be copyright under California. MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

A Gent from Bear Creek (novella)

This Robert Howard novella, according to the description on the page, was initially published in the UK in 1937 and later in the US in 1966. It cites a Gutenburg AU project that presents works in the public domain in Australia. There is no copyright banner on the page, and while I may be missing some nuance, it's hard to see where it would have lapsed into the public domain under US law, which is necessary by Wikisource's copyright policy. -Pete (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The PG notice is not for A Gent from Bear Creek (novella), but A Gent from Bear Creek (short story), which is also a chapter of A Gent from Bear Creek (novella).

As published after 1963, it's not eligible for {{PD-no-renewal}}, but as this is wholly unsourced and I couldn't find a scan of it I can't check for {{PD-US-no-notice}}.

I'd say  Delete as we can't establish a certainty that this is PD. — Alien333 ( what I did &
why I did it wrong ) 12:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: The short story (and possibly the others) may also need to be deleted. — Alien333 ( what I did &
why I did it wrong ) 14:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete. The book is a fix-up novella, containing original short stories adapted to form the chapter of a continuous narrative. All were previously published in magazines (most of them in Action Stories). Which means we have the copyright status of the original short stories (first publication) to contend with, where "was copyright transferred to the publisher"-type problems are in play, in addition to the new copyright for the (modified) versions in the 1937 fix-up novella. And just to add insult to injury this edition is so rare that there are only 11 copies known in private hands and 7 in libraries, so checking one for the presence or absence of a copyright notice is… challenging. The 1965 US edition is known to have a copyright page which also lists that as the "First American Edition", so it was not simultaneously published in the US.

ISFD is a great resource for researching Howard works. Here is the overview for the novel (including links to overviews for the individual stories). Here is the overview for the first edition. And here is the first US edition. Xover (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Xover: At least one of the British Isles libraries which owns it should be willing to send me a scan (of the copyright information); I’ve just sent for one. I’ll report back here once that happens. Hopefully it will have more detailed information on the original sources of the short stories. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Discourses on Livy (Neville)

There could be a copyright problem concerning Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy. The text we have on Wikisource claims to be the Henry Neville translation (first published in 1675). But it doesn't read like a 17th century text.

According to the Talk Page, the text was apparently lifted from http://constitution.org/2-Authors/mac/disclivy_.htm, and a Note on the Text there claims it's the Neville text but with "corrected obvious typographical errors and misspellings" and apparently some other, vaguely-specified, changes.

But, even if we still allow this as public domain (which is questionable), it doesn't seem to be the same translation. The first sentence of Book One of the Neville translation (1720 edition) is:

Considering with my self what honour is given to Antiquity, and how many times (passing by variety of instances) the fragment of an old Statue has been purchas'd at an high rate by many people, out of curiosity to keep it by them, as an ornament to their house, or as a pattern for the imitation of such as delight in that art; and with what industry and pains they endeavour afterwards to have it represented in all their buildings.

whereas the opening sentence of the version on Wikisource is:

When I consider how much honor is attributed to antiquity, and how many times, not to mention many other examples, a fragment of an antique statue has been bought at a great price in order to have it near to one, honoring his house, being able to have it imitated by those who delight in those arts, and how they then strive with all industry to present them in all their work:

Finally, when I search for sentence fragments of the Wikisource text on Google Book Search, the earliest book which keeps coming up is: Anthony J. Pansini (1969) Niccolò Machiavelli and the United States of America. The Google Books blurb which accompanies the book says: "The commentary (p. 1-234) is followed by Pansini's translations based on the 1772 edition published in London under title: Tutte l'opere di Niccolò Machiavelli."

So is Wikisource hosting a 1969 translation by Anthony J. Pansini? Pasicles (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom; as far as I can tell this analysis appears to be correct. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. Xover (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The Art of War (Neville)

I found this second Machiavelli text, on Wikisource since 2005, but with the same problem. This time the source is asserted to be: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/machiavelli-the-art-of-war-neville-trans, and again claiming to be by Henry Neville.

But, again the language is too modern, and once again a Google Book Search comes up with: Niccolò Machiavelli and the United States of America by Anthony J. Pansini.

A little bit about Pansini's book can read here. A hefty 1358-page tome written by an "Italian-American patriot" and enthusiast, keen to assert "the relevance of Machiavelli for the United States" or some such. Pasicles (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete per nom, I haven't checked to verify, but your analysis on Discourses on Livy (Neville) was thorough enough that I'm willing to take your word for it lol —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Index:Tumors of the pituitary gland.djvu

Although this work was published by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (a US government institution), its author was not an employee of the US government, so I am unsure whether {{PD-USGov}} applies. I do not see any other rationale for this work being PD in the US. (The author, Sylvia L. Asa, at the time worked for the University of Toronto and for Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete: that USgov agency is only described as publisher, not author, so not PD. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 20:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Comment If this work is deleted, then the author page Author:Sylvia L. Asa should be deleted also, as well as the file File:Tumors of the pituitary gland.djvu on Commons. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Open letter to the Assembly of the SFRJ and to the Assembly of SR Serbia by the Free University (1984)

No source, no license, no translator info, and no indication of PD status —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete: although from talk it appears it was extracted from this book (also maybe confirmed by match of first words) in which case translator is likely author of that book Branka Magaš (as it matched nowhere else), but anyway this doesn't look like it's in any variety of PD so all of that doesn't matter. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 22:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Comment If this page is deleted, then the following Author pages should be deleted also: Zagorka Golubović, Nebojša Popov, Miladin Životić, Svetozar Stojanović, Mihailo Marković, Dobrica Ćosić, Dragoljub Mićunović, Ljubomir Tadić —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Some stories in Modern Japanese Stories

Some of the stories in this collection may still be copyrighted in the US. commons:COM:JAPAN#Terms says that works whose author died after 1945 were restored by the URAA, and several stories have such authors and were originally published after 1928. At a glance, these include:

• "Hydrangea" (published in 1931, author died in 1959)
• "Brother and Sister" (published in 1934, author died in 1962)
• "The Charcoal Bus" (published in 1952, author died in 1993)
• "Machine" (published in 1930, author died in 1947)
• "The Moon on the Water" (published in 1953, author died in 1972)
• "The Song Bird" (published in 1938, author died in 1959)

(not-yet-transcribed stories)

• "Morning Mist" (published in 1950, author died in 1990)
• "The Hateful Age" (published in 1947, author died in 2005)
• "Tokyo" (published in 1948, author died in 1951)
• "A Man's Life" (published in 1950, author died in 1972)
• "The Idiot" (published in 1946, author died in 1954)
• "Shotgun" (published in 1949, author died in 1991)
• "A Visitor" (published in 1946, author died in 1948)
• "The Priest of Shiga Temple and His Love" (published in 1954, author died in 1970)

Prospectprospekt (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Could you look closer at this? The collection was published in the UK, so lack of renewal would seem to be irrelevant. Did you find evidence that it was simultaneously published in the US? And while if the translations into English are all by Morris they might conceivably be PD with the collection, the originals (whether Japanese or English) were clearly not first published in this collection. In other words, I don't see by what path these could be public domain. Xover (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Index:Donegal Fairy Stories (1915).djvu

The specfic edition is clearly a pre 1928 US edition. However, I'm not on doing a little reading convinced it's suitable for hosting on Commons. The author wrote this in Ireland in 1900, The author of the text died in 1960. Applying a standard 70 year term, this may still be in copyright outside the US until 2030. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: To the best of my knowledge, the book was first published in the USA in New York in 1900 by an American publisher and the nationality of the author doesn't matter per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom ("A work, other than a broadcast, can qualify for copyright protection in either of two ways: by the nationality of the author, or by the country of first publication. [...] However, a work made before 1 June 1957, can only qualify for copyright protection by its country of first publication; not by the author's nationality. [...] If a work is first published in only one country, which is a party to the Berne Convention, then that is the country of origin. [...] If two or more Berne Convention countries qualify, and not all of them are in the EEA (such as Canada, the US, or Australia), then the Berne Convention country with the shortest applicable copyright term determines the copyright term within the UK, if it is shorter than the normal term for such work under UK law.")

But I'm not a lawyer, so feel free to correct me. That said, it might have been a better idea to find and proofread the 1900 edition. --Ssvb (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, County Donegal is not a part of the UK, now I'm not so sure anymore. Seumas MacManus seems to be categorized as a British author on Wikidata. --Ssvb (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Ireland is complicated. From 1800 to 1922, all of Ireland was under UK governance, but at the end of 1922 five-sixth of Ireland gained independence. See w:History of Ireland (1801–1923) for more information. So, when the book was published, MacManus was a UK author, but by 1923, he was no longer a UK author. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00, @EncycloPetey: Since the copyright situation is obscure for the non-lawyer folks like us (MacManus even relocated to the USA before 1922 and probably was an American citizen by that time), can we just move the djvu file from Commons to Wikisource and be done with that? --Ssvb (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Index:Conversion of an existing gas turbine to an intercooled exhaust-heated coal burning engine. (IA conversionofexis00kowa).pdf

1990 Academic thesis. No indication author was a federal employee. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Author was at the Naval Academy, received a commission before [10] and served as an engineering officer in the navy [11] after. In theory he could have resigned his commission, paid back the tuition etc. attended graduate school and then joined afterwards, I am sure someone can find his service records to confirm, but I suspect he was serving in the Navy at the time. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the confirmation I need. Can you bookmark that resource for checking other NPS documents? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Index:Model Engineer & Practical Electrician 1501.pdf

1930 publication of UK origin. - This is to recent to automatically apply a PD-US tag. The file as uploaded has no licence information. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

For our purposes, it's clearly a US work; see the top of the cover. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html lists every periodical that was first published before 1950 and renewed; it doesn't list this one, so it wasn't renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Spring and all - William Carlos Williams.djvu

This book was published in France, and is under copyright in that country until 2034, so the file will need to be localized to Wikisource until then. The copy on Commons violates their rules. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete on Commons, as we only care about the copyright status in the United States. Per c:COM:HIRTLE, the work is 100% in American PD.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

When we do that, it will disappear from Wikisource too, because it is currently on Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I see. I'm not sure if the French copyright term of 70 years p.m.a (per c:COM:FRANCE) is retroactive, because if it is not then it should enter French public domain at 58 years p.m.a. (i.e. 2021, 1963+58). I left a question on Common's VPC. If the question is negative then probably I'll try to move the file here and start a deletion request on Commons.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

All the EU extensions were retroactive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

A possible problematic book - duplicated from the scriptorium

As @user:Beleg Tâl, noticed, and I am also confused about this publication's license to be considered in public domain Diamonds To Sit On.

This book is universally known as The twelve chairs.. and is also faithfully recreated comedy film by Mel Brooks. This title was published earlier in English.

The two books are identical. It's possible that this publication was to circumvent the then existing copyright laws? — ineuw (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not getting the problem. The underlying work was published in 1928 by authors who died more than 74 years ago, and thus are out of copyright in Russia and the US. They were also Soviet works, and the Soviet Union had no foreign copyright treaties until the 1950s.

So we're looking at the English translation, and I don't see any evidence that any translation was published under the name The Twelve Chairs until John H. C. Richardson's translation in 1961. HathiTrust doesn't have their copy visible, but https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007116969 is the earliest copy they have, and it's the same 1930 work published in the US, for which there's no copyright renewal. I don't know how this was circumventing any then-existing copyright law.

If someone can show an earlier publication or a renewal I somehow missed, then maybe it's still under copyright for a couple years, but it looks clear to me.

(And Twelve Chairs/12 стульев was a movie by famed director Leonid Gaidai. It even has more ratings on IMDB than the Mel Brooks adaptation, even given the IMDB's English bias.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I will remove the notices from the author pages. — ineuw (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ineuw you can't remove the {{no license}} tag from the author pages, without adding a valid license tag! —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl What do you mean by a license tag on the author`s page? Do you mean the copyright license? Isn't it the wrong place? — ineuw (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the copyright tag, {{PD-US}} or {{PD-old}} or whatever. You forgot to add one when you removed {{no license}}. It looks like they have been fixed now. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

My knowledge of current Author page requirements is very limited. The numerous updates to contributions I made prior to the past decade were made by User:Billinghurst, and other editors. — ineuw (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• I scanned in the book and so did some bibliographic research with respect to it. It is at least in the public domain in the United States. The original text was published in 1928, and so is in the public domain owing to age. The 1930 translation was not renewed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Civil Code of Cambodia and associated pages

The text is a translation of the Civil Code of Cambodia by Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). While Cambodian law are in public domain (cf. c:COM:Cambodia), the English translations are, according to JICA's site policy, copyrighted and all rights reserved (with reproduction prohibited as well). The texts are therefore clear copyright violations and should be deleted.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Associated pages: Civil Code of Cambodia/B1, Civil Code of Cambodia/B2.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hope (Lu)

If this translation exceeds the threshold of originality, then do we have proof of authorized publication in the United States within 30 days of publication in China? Some of the Yangs' translations were published in the US by Cameron Associates in Chosen Pages From Lu Hsun, but we don't know when exactly that was published and if publication was authorized, especially since I've heard that the US didn't have copyright relations with China around the time of the Cultural Revolution? Prospectprospekt (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Pngleee: might be able to answer. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

How can I tell if something was published inside the US?

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Works which were in the PD in their home country on the URAA date do not have to be checked whether they were published in the US too.

I'm working on a project to digitise public domain NZ novels, some of which may be suitable for wikisource. I've identified several authors whose works may fall under {{PD-1996}} (published outside the US, no copyright notice, died before 1946 so PD in NZ before URAA date). My problem is determining whether the works were published in the US. I can see multiple ways to check copyright renewals; is there a way to check publication?-- IdiotSavant (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't see why you'd need to. The URAA, for copyright purposes, only changed non-US works from being public domain to being copyrighted. If a work was a US work, or was still copyrighted in the US, its status didn't change. If a work was renewed, then it might be copyrighted in the US (probably not if a significant number were printed without a copyright notice), but if it was published before 1963, and wasn't renewed, then the only question is was it in the public domain in 1996 in its home nation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

OK. I'd been using the {{PD-1996}} template as a checklist, so I'd regarded that clause as significant. If its not, then I guess I'll dig round for a candidate work to upload. IdiotSavant (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It would make a difference only if the work was published in the United States within 30 days after its publication outside the United States. Unfortunately, as far as I know there are no systematic ways how to check this. BTW, some time ago I was explained that "publication" in the sense of the US law means not only publication by a publisher, but it is enough if the work was merely sold or otherwise distributed in the US to be considered "published" there, but this is extremely difficult to track. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Why does that matter as to the final state? For works published before 1964, you can simply check if they had a renewal; if they didn't, their copyright had lapsed in the US before 1996. If it was out of copyright in its home nation or it was published in the US within 30 days, the URAA wouldn't have restored it, so it's enough to know that it was out of copyright in its home nation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

And what about works published before 1964 outside US which were copyrighted in its home country on the URAA date? If such works were published simultaneously in the USA and they for example do not have a copyright notice, they should be PD in the US. But if they were not published simultaneously in the US, they are copyrighted. Do I understand it right? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, now I can see that the original question contained the information that the work was PD in the home country on the URAA date. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Related question: which country is the "home country"? To give a specific example, Check To Your King by Author:Robin Hyde (AKA Iris Wilkinson) was published in 1936 and has no copyright notice. The author is a kiwi (born in South Africa, lived in NZ, died in London in 1939). Its a New Zealand book by a New Zealand author. But of course the publisher is British, because colonialism (and Hyde had one hell of a colonial cringe; she wrote a whole novel about it apparently). If I go by the author, copyright expired in 1990, so no problem. If I go by the publisher, copyright had expired in 1990, but was retroactively extended on 1 January 1996 to last until 2010. Which I assume is a problem under URAA? IdiotSavant (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the "home country" is determined by the "printed in London", so we can't host that for another 8 years. — Alien  3
3 3 09:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I was afraid that would be the answer. So, if I want to take advantage of this, I would need to focus on things printed in NZ, with authors who died before 1946, and printed before 1971 (to cover typographical copyright). I wonder if there's anything which will qualify... IdiotSavant (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

There are also all the books published before '29, and all those whose authors died before '26. — Alien  3
3 3 10:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Though many of those have already been covered by NZETC, and I don't want to waste time duplicating their work (others may want to however). I've definitely got some candidate works they haven't covered lined up, however. IdiotSavant (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Songs for Children Sung in Japan

There are parts of the book by Japanese authors who died after 1945, which means the URAA would have restored their copyright, as Japan was life + 50 at the time. There's even authors like Author:Yaso Saijō, who died in 1970, and since Japan became a life+70 country, are still in copyright until 2040. Those authors would need to be removed to keep what's left. Prosfilaes (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

PS: Unless it could somehow be the case that any of those challenged poems were published in Japanese before 1929? SnowyCinema (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. But that's going to be very hard. Looking at w:ja:西條八十 with Google Translate, it seems that Songs for Children Sung in Japan/Mr. Moon and maybe Songs for Children Sung in Japan/Canary are old enough, but who knows about the rest?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The Japanese text is published in this book, which means that that text is also PD-US-no-renewal. Absent specific evidence to the contrary—which should always be the basis of a deletion discussion—this must be kept. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  • The volume we have is printed by The Hokuseido Press, in Occupied Japan. https://discovernikkei.org/en/journal/2022/10/26/yukuo-uyehara-1/ is the one source I can find on the net for Yukuo Uyehara, which makes it clear he was domiciled in the US (so the URAA wouldn't have restored his work) and "In March 1940, Uyehara published his first book, with Hokuseido Press of Japan. Titled Songs for Children: Sung in Japan, the book consisted of a collection of fifty “doyo,” or Japanese children’s songs, that were popularly sung in Japanese classrooms at the time." So the book was printed in Japan and these songs were previously published works, so this book would have minimal impact on their copyright status.
  • No, we shouldn't accept foreign works just because nobody has enough knowledge of the foreign language to look up information about the texts. If we have no information, we should at the very least assume the most likely.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Prosfilaes: So you’re admitting you don’t have any evidence that any part of this work is copyrighted? If so, you have no reason to start this discussion. The songs were all printed by Hokuseido in this book; that is evidence of a publication. Insofar as you have not shown any earlier publication, “we should at the very least assume” that Songs for Children Sung in Japan is the first publication of the songs. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
      • If we assume that, the works of Japanese authors published in Japan in Songs for Children Sung in Japan were restored by the URAA unless they were out of copyright in Japan at the time. These authors weren't out of copyright in Japan at the time, and some of them aren't out of copyright in Japan now.
      • And the standard of Wikimedia projects has never been just assume it's out of copyright until someone hits us over the head with it. For example, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-old-assumed doesn't just assume that every work created more than 70 years ago is out of copyright in life+70; it's not impossible that 120 years from creation is too short for a certain work, but that length of time has been chosen as a reasonable assumption.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
        • “If we assume that, the works of Japanese authors published in Japan in Songs for Children Sung in Japan were restored by the URAA unless they were out of copyright in Japan at the time.” This is not true; the work was published in the United States and not renewed, so those songs which were first published in Songs for Children Sung in Japan are in the public domain for failure to renew. The URAA cannot restore an American copyright, after all. For the most part “assumptions” are based on a lack of initial information. But here, there is basic information; we have one publication, and it’s old enough to be presumed to be the first publication (that is, it’s not an Internet copy but a physical book). I don’t understand how you think it’s then reasonable to assume against this evidence, especially as you have repeatedly stated that you have no evidence to support your assumption (whereas I of course have the book I scanned as evidence in support of my view). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
          • Page:Songs for Children Sung in Japan.djvu/10 says "Printed in occupied Japan". See above, where I pointed out the 1940 copy was printed by "Hokuseido Press of Japan". It was not published in the US.
          • You can presume anything. But multiauthor collections are usually of preexisting material, and I can not remember, and I can not imagine, any collection of translations that aren't translated from preexisting material. Why would someone? First-run rights cost more than reprints, and you get your choice of a lot more material going for reprints. And we certainly shouldn't assume the improbable happened.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
            • The location of printing is irrelevant. This volume was printed for sale in Japan and Hawaii, and thus was published in the United States for the purposes of U.S. copyright law. Once again, this volume was not only the translation but also the original texts. Without any evidence (which you have not provided) of an earlier printing, we should not “presume” that such a printing exists. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
              • Where's your proof it was printed for sale in Hawaii? This does not seem like you care about the facts of the matter as much as getting the book in.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
                • It says so in the colophon. It even has an American price ($1.50). Could you do a modicum of research before you nominate my hard for work deletion? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
                  • Where does it say that? What does it say? Link, copy, paste. I can't find any such thing. Yes, the 1949 version has an American price. That was published nine years after the book was first published in 1940, so that doesn't matter at all.
                  • This is a 1940 work published in Japan with texts that were previously published in Japan by Japanese authors (see above for Yaso Saijō's Mr. Moon, for example). Why don't you do enough research to establish that it's actually in the public domain?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
                    • What are you even talking about? The book is my evidence: it was published in the United States, and there was no renewal. That is my basic evidence which establishes that this book is in the public domain. You, however, have provided no evidence that the book is not in the public domain—only speculation. I have pointed this out before in this discussion, and yet you have repeatedly refused to provide any evidence in support of your claim. I can’t refute your claims because you haven’t provided any evidence to support them. Just as you say, without evidence, that the book is copyrighted, I can refute your claim by simply stating, with as much evidence as you gave me, that it is not copyrighted. I have already provided evidence to support my initial claim, that the book is not copyrighted; and I am happy to dispute your counter-claims on equal grounds. But I cannot try to oppose your claim with evidence, when you have provided no evidence in support of your claim in the first place. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
                      • You shouldn't be trying to oppose my claim. You should be trying to establish the facts of the matter. That you do treat this as a debate makes me question whether you would conceal or even falsify evidence to keep the book in Wikisource.
                      • When were the poems originally published? I've done some work above and found evidence that at least two poems were published outside this book. This confirms my assumption that the poems weren't first published in this volume. You just want to assume they were.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

About the poems/songs. I found one where it (and the music) was published at jp.wikipedia. It was a challenge to find these songs, heck, even the authors have that thing where sometimes they go by Given Family (name) or maybe Family Given (also name). The book has been set up so that when jp.wikisource wants to, they can fill in the jp pages and perhaps also help to research the original publications. Page:Songs for Children Sung in Japan.djvu/82 had an image. Page:Songs for Children Sung in Japan.djvu/80 is set up to be proofed at jp.wikisource. {{iwpage}}. It was a miracle I found this.

Songs for Children Sung in Japan/Tapping of Shoes

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%9D%B4%E3%81%8C%E9%B3%B4%E3%82%8B--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• The more this “discussion” drags on, the more clearly you act in bad faith. “You shouldn't be trying to oppose my claim”, you say: why not? Are we not supposed to have adversarial discussions, with different people holding different opinions? Or are we supposed to roll over and delete whatever you don’t like, without asking questions? You mention “trying to establish the facts”, and I agree that that is a valid goal; in fact, I have been trying to get you to establish your facts for quite some time now. I am personally in favor of hosting as much public domain material as possible, and frequently contribute to discussions here in an effort to save works which would otherwise be deleted; but I have contributed to a number of discussions where I was the one to find the single piece of evidence which confirmed that the work was copyrighted, and which, but for my action, may not have been deleted. Your accusing me of hiding or falsifying evidence is unconscionable. As to your question of first publication, I have provided my evidence, but you have not provided yours; but there’s no reason for me to belabor this point, as you presumably have no evidence to bolster your unsupported attacks (or you would have shown that evidence the last several times I asked you). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• No, we are not supposed to have adversarial discussions. People can have different opinions and both be trying to get to the truth, not trying to oppose each other.
• Fact: these poems are Japanese works by Japanese authors. RaboKarbakian linked a page that shows the poem was "first appeared in the November 1919 issue of the magazine Shojo -go ."; that is, these poems were published before the book. I don't think that it's reasonable to demand I do bibliographic research in Japanese to prove a poem is copyrighted in the US; if you want to keep the poems, prove they were out of copyright in Japan in 1996 (i.e. the author died before 1946) or they were first published before 1929.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

commons:Category:Winnie The Pooh, 1926 the illustrator is not in Britain's public domain yet, but because this book was published in the United States, the images are as PD as the book is. I am pretty sure that the same would be true for the poets who have poems in this book.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Commons and the English Wikisource have different rules. Any book published in 1926 is in the public domain in the US; even if Winnie the Pooh was only published in the UK, it would still be in the public domain in the US, and acceptable for the English Wikisource, but not for Commons. These poems weren't first published in this book, and as they were works by Japanese authors published in Japan, they get a full 95 years of copyright from publication. Retroactively, only US works needed renewal, and since these aren't US works, renewal is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The book was published in the U.S. in 1949, and copyright was not renewed. --FPTI (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. The book was published in the U.S. in 1949, and copyright was not renewed."--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Max Headroom signal hijacking of WTTW

There is a concern by Wound theology at Talk:Max Headroom signal hijacking of WTTW: The copyright template here notes that the source was "legally published within the United States" but the definition of legally published is clearly not applicable here: Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending [...] A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: This ideally should be sent to Commons to sort out there, because really it should be deleted everywhere if it's deleted here. SnowyCinema (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Started that deletion discussion: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Max Headroom broadcast intrusion.webm. Please take further comments there. SnowyCinema (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Constitution for the Federation of Earth

The licence {{PD-ineligible}} does not seem justifiable here. For the related discussion see User talk:BeLucky#insufficient licence information, where BeLucky states they received an email from the publisher allegedly confirming it is "without copyright restrictions". However, we would need this to be confirmed by VRT. I am also not sure, whether this loose wording includes modifications of the work, as required by our policy. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• In my mind, “without copyright restrictions” (if that is exactly the author’s phrasing) is equivalent to PD-release, and is sufficient. (To prevent modifications of a work, one could release it under a CC BY-ND or similar license; however, such a license is necessarily a copyright license involving “copyright restrictions.”) Jan Kameníček: On that talk page, BeLucky states that VTR permission has been sent (Ticket #2023081910001389). Could someone verify this? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I will ask about it. I suppose that we will need approval with the release of all the authors, i. e.: H. Philip Isely, Terence P. Amerasinghe, Syed Md. Husain, D. M. Spencer, Max Habicht and Drafting Commission. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Nintendo of America Inc. v. Tropic Haze LLC

I noticed that Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Xeverything11 proposed deletion of files used on Wikisource; at closer inspection, even the document itself is not free. It's not the work of the US government, or a judicial decision; it's the work of Nintendo of America and its lawyers. It is not in any way released on a free license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

See also c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nintendo of America Inc. v. Tropic Haze LLC.djvu.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

A few indexes of works published in the UK after 1928

Following the previous nominations of Index:Property and Improperty.djvu and Confessions of an Economic Heretic, I am adding more:

• Index:L. T. Hobhouse, His Life and Work.pdf (1931)
• Index:Poverty in Plenty.djvu (1931)
• Index:Veblen (Hobson).pdf (1936)
• Index:Imperialism, A Study.djvu (1938)
• Index:Essays in Science and Philosophy.djvu (1948)
• Index:Adventures of Ideas.djvu + Adventures of Ideas (1933)
• Index:Nature and Life (1934).pdf + Nature and Life (1934)

-- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Imperialism has 1902 and 1905 editions, which could be substituted. Essays in Science and Philosophy and Adventures of Ideas were simultaneously published in the United States, and both were renewed. Nature and Life was actually first published in the United States; our copy is a later (British) re-print. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! So Nature and Life should be eligible to be hosted here as not renewed in the US. Unfortunately, the 1938 edition of Imperialism contains a long chapter Introduction to the 1938 edition, due to which it is not possible to host this scan here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)