User talk:123uhjsakddsa89321l3

__NOINDEX__ — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Work is copyright
An anonymous work published outside of the United States would still be protected by copyright, so the work will be deleted.

http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm Look at first published outside of US, 1923-1977 => still within copyright until 95 years after publication date

Sorry about that.

— billinghurst  sDrewth  05:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. It is already public domain in its country of origin, Chile. As stated here, "Works published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the author is unknown: copyright expires if they were first published before September 16, 1962". This work was published sometime between April 1947 (founding date of the school) and mid-1950s (there is a photo somewhere in the school, picturing a nun with a sign behind her reading the first two lines of the chorus; could not find it online, the school has not a lot of internet presence), that's why I think it is, most likely, public domain in its origin country. Doesn't that make it public domain elsewhere too? If not, then deletion is fairly justified. --Lester Foster (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To my understanding, the critical date is the status of the work in 1996 (Chile was treaty signatory); as while it may be PD in Chile today we need to know its status in 1996, to know the status applied in the US at that time. We need an interpretation of the 1970 Act in Chile to work out in what year the work became PD. Ideally we need the tight detail on the status of the works by the 1950 legislation for anonymous works, and then by the later 1970 legislation again for anonymous. To me the Chilean law looks 50 years post publication for when an anonymous work gets into the public domain. So in 1996 it was still under copyright, so by the chart if it has not been published in the US (heaps of 'if' and 'buts'), then we are at 95 years post publication, therefore 2051. If you would prefer, we can take the discussion to WS:CV and seek more opinions. — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking more at the WP article on Chilean copyright, I see"Originally, the Law No. 17,336 established an extension of 30 years, which was amended in 1992, &hellip;" Which is an opportunity, as if 30 years applies this that would mean  for when it entered the public domain. — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That implies it was PD already in 1996, cool. But, yes, it would be better to seek more opinions on this, let's take this discussion to the possible copyright violations. --Lester Foster (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at the Chilean intellectual property law first published on 2 October 1970. It can be found also online at the Chilean National Congress Library. In its thirteenth article it states: "La protección de la obra anónima o seudónima dura treinta años, a contar desde la primera publicación." ("The protection of anonymous or pseudonymous work lasts for thirty years, since its first publication."). Considering the school hymn may have existed already in 1955, its copyright expired in 1985-1986, six years before the law was ammended. ("Reemplázase en los artículos 12 y 13, la expresión "treinta años", por "cincuenta años"." / "Be replaced in the 12th and 13th articles, the expression "thirty years" for "fifty years".") Even if the work had been published in 1960 (it was created before 1960 for sure) it would have been public domain before the copyright protection was extended in Chile, and years before its copyright could have been extended in the US. Cheers, Lester Foster (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Great work, I will recover the piece, and create a licence for PD-Chile. What would be great, if you wouldn't mind, is for you to basically summarise the above discussion about the work being in the public domain c.1986-1990, and our interpretation, and add to the talk page of the work.  Also would be worthwhile adding   to the article header and that will create a pointer. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, translated a summary I added to the Spanish version talk page, and put it in here. Lester Foster (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Farmington additions with regard to our scope
Hi. Would you please explain why you believe that the recent additions of webpages from UniFarmington fit with the scope as expressed at What Wikisource includes. I do not feel that such pages do fit within the scope, one due to their general nature of web pages as dynamic documents, and two they are specifically stated as being copyrighted, and making a claim that they are authored by Homeland Security is not supported by evidence.

Talking about the pages:
 * Admissions at University of Farmington
 * Contact University of Farmington
 * Available programs at University of Farmington
 * Factoids of University of Farmington
 * Facts of University of Farmington
 * About the University of Farmington

— billinghurst  sDrewth  21:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Just have a look at its Wikipedia entry: "The University of Farmington is a fake university set up in 2015 in Michigan by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to expose student visa fraud in the United States. The sting operation, which was code-named "Paper Chase", was overseen by the United States Department of Homeland Security. Over 600 individuals were identified in the operation, many of whom face deportation from the United States for visa violations". I believe these pages should be kept here for historical and educational purposes.  --Cuatro Remos (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That you believe that the pages should be kept does not put them within scope. We are not here to archive websites, replicate spoof sites, etc; especially when there is no clear evidence on who specifically created the text and webpages. That is not our scope. I am going to put before the community at WS:PD so you will be able to express your POV there. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure . Please note I don't really mind if these are deleted. --Cuatro Remos (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)