User talk:Balabinrm

Translations
For translations, we date the work by the date the translation was published, not the original. We also identify the translator in the header, and include a license for the translation (again not just the original). This is all necessary because a translation can still be under copyright even when the original work is in the public domain. If the work was published anonymously in the UK, the translation remains under copyright by the published until 95 years after publication, but if this was published outside the UK, copyright law for an anonymous translation may differ. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, a translation is normally judged according to the date the translator died, not the original author. For anonymous translators, I have already commented above. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi: Thank you for your interest ) are we talking about The Three Sources...? If yes, it was "anonymously" (MARX-ENGELS-LENIN INSTITUTE) published in Moscow - and was in PD before 1996. --Balabinrm (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I ask because I do not know what Russian law says about anonymous translations. But there should be one license for the original (1913, by Lenin), and a second license for the translation (The date Lenin died is irrelevant for the translation.) You have marked the translation according to date the "author" died, but the relevant date is the date the translator died. When the translator is anonymous, different laws apply. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is why I used licence... Ok? Current Russian law (from 2006) says +70; Soviet one was much less - but, anyway, it is in PD by both now. Maybe  would be a better choice for translation? --Balabinrm (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * When will +70 be? The +70 is meaningless because we don't know when the translator died. We can't count +70 years if we don't know who the translator is, because the law is +70 from the date of death and we don't know when that was. We need a license for anonymous works for the translation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right: I am still new to the Wikisource licencing. fits perfetly, thank you ) --Balabinrm (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * When exactly copytight for anonymous works published in 1946 did expire according to the 1993 Russian copyright law and why exactly it was PD in Russia in 1996? For storing the text here its copyright status in 1996 should be investigated. (It is irrelevant whether it is/was PD in Russia now or pre-1992.) Ankry (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this work was PD before 1993, and under the 1993 Russian copyright law it was copyrighted till 31.12.1996. (And later again from 2004 till 31.12.2016, which is irrelevant here.) So URAA applies to it, or am I missing something? Ankry (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ankry: the copyright history of the text is that complicated. But now (since 2016), finally, it is in PD (again). --Balabinrm (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Categories
We don't categorize by people or authors on en-Wikisource. Author pages serve that function. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ups... Really?.. Sorry, will remove it. --Balabinrm (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Thank you for doing it faster then me ) --Balabinrm (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we have someone adding works by Marx and Lenin. We don't have much for either author here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you ) It is much easier in Russian, but now even the translations start to expire. So, a lot of work ) --Balabinrm (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)