Wikisource:Copyright discussions

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Transcriptions added by user:Johnson.Xia
Most of the works uploaded by appear to be copyright violations. They are not with license templates and many are copy and pastes from a Chinese Government website that clearly states that the pages are copyright. So even if the Chinese language pages are in the public domain, there is no certainty that the translations are in the public domain. Unless this can be quickly demonstrated to not be the case I think that we just have to delete the uploads. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I would like to cite Article 5 of Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China that most of my works published are either 0"official translations" of "documents of administrative nature" or "mere information about facts or happenings". Also, considering copyright regulations for official websites of governments around the world, I believe that works from Chinese Government are in public domain as well. Johnson.Xia (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking of .gov websites, I wonder if documents on speaker.gov are in public domain. Johnson.Xia (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that the works are classified as PD-ROC-exempt? If yes, then they need to be applied to the work, and you have to explain/demonstrate that is the case on the talk page of each work. Use the notes field in the pertinent talk page template. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you mean PD-PRC-exempt in this case. Shells-shells (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please specify which works are questioned. Even if Chinese Wikisource considers anything absolute acceptable, the translation here requires verifiable source and license. If Chinese Wikisource considers anything a copyvio, then the matching work here must go.--Jusjih (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I note multiple issues with lack of licensing, questionable copyright status, improper sourcing (zhWS cannot be a source for a text on enWS), and what appears to be undeclared user translations in violation of WS:T. I am unable to trawl through all their contributions just now, but a quick spot check indicates there is a lot of cleanup to do (large parts may need to be deleted) and appears to need guidance on our policies and practices. @Johnson.Xia: please familiarise yourself with enWS policies (you'll find pertinent links in the welcome message on your talk page) before adding any further texts, and ask for help or guidance (at WS:S/H or from an admin) if there's anything that is unclear. Xover (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "improper sourcing (zhWS cannot be a source for a text on enWS)", "undeclared user translations in violation of WS:T", please specify it. —unsigned comment by Johnson.Xia (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2022‎ (UTC).
 * You were clearly able to find it yourself without much trouble. Xover (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, having gone through them, this affects the following pages: None of these are egregious, but all of them also have various lesser issues with formatting, incomplete header template etc. They're also mostly cut&pastes of web pages. --Xover (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Joint Leaders' Statement on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)—Joint work by the various signatory governments, and most of them have no PD-*Gov exceptions. Not eligible for EdictGov in the US.
 * Joint Statement of the Foreign Ministers' Meeting on the Afghan Issue Among the Neighbouring Countries of Afghanistan—Ditto.
 * Joint Press Release of the 16th Round of China-India Corps Commander Level Meeting—Ditto.
 * Chinese FM makes remarks on U.S. violation of China's sovereignty—Press releases are not PD-PRC-exempt.
 * G7 Foreign Ministers’ Statement on Preserving Peace and Stability Across the Taiwan Strait—Joint work with signatory who does not have PD-*Gov exceptions.
 * Defense Ministry spokesperson Wu Qian's remarks on Pelosi's visit to Taiwan—Press releases are not PD-PRC-exempt.
 * Spokesperson of Chinese Mission to the EU Speaks on a Question Concerning the Statement on Taiwan by G7 Foreign Ministers and the EU High Representative—Ditto.
 * Joint Statement Issued Following Discussions by Saudi, Iranian Foreign Ministers in Beijing—Ditto.
 * THE COMMON AFRICAN POSITION ON THE PROPOSED REFORM OF THE UNITED NATIONS: “THE EZULWINI CONSENSUS”—Joint work with signatory without PD-*Gov exceptions.
 * Final statement of extraordinary joint Arab Islamic summit—Ditto.

Works of Noel Rosa
The translation licenses are fine, but it's not clear to me whether/why the underlying works are PD. Some works don't have years; those that do range from 1932–1936. Do these qualify as "cinematographic, phonographic, photographic [or] applied arts works" (from commons:Template:PD-Brazil-URAA)? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 02:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I see this in Wikipedia: "Apart from expired copyright and unknown authors, works in the public domain include those from authors who have died and left no successors." MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @MarkLSteadman Thank you for checking! Do we have reason to think that applies to Rosa? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 05:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * He apparently died fatherless, young and estranged. But I don't know nearly enough about Brazilian law to confirm what that requires. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As somebody currently navigating these waters IRL, it seems to me that probate law varies widely in different U.S. states, and surely even moreso in various countries. The statement that happens to be on Wikipedia (which is surely further attributable to an authoritative source..?) seems like a simplification, I believe often a proper successor would be determined by a legal process highly tuned to the specifics of the individual, even if there wasn't a proper will to rely on, or obvious traditional heirs. In short I doubt that any principle as simple and convenient as that cited from the Wikipedia page is reliable. -Pete (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * From III. 45. "45. In addition to the works in respect of which the protection of the economic rights
 * has expired, the following shall pass into the public domain:
 * I. the works of authors deceased without heir;
 * II. the works of unknown authors, subject to the legal protection of ethnic and
 * traditional lore." https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/125393 MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But apparently under Brazilian law transfer to the wife is necessary and happens by default so it would seem that Lindaura Martins would therefore be the heir and copyright owner (and she lived the URAA date). MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If I understand this all correctly, it seems that (a) we would need pretty definitive evidence that copyright lapsed, and (b) the info you have uncovered strongly suggests that copyright has not lapsed. To me this seems like a clear for anything published after 1929 (which might be all of them).
 * I'll note that Billinghurst added a note in 2013 claiming that Wikisource has "permission" to host the works, without a link, or OTRS reference, etc. Billinghurst can you elaborate? Seems like something you'd get right, but the lack of evidence, or acknowledgment on the page that "permission for Wikisource" is not sufficient for hosting here, is tough to parse. Does it go beyond the talk page comment from Quadell? Seems clear that it would need to, to establish the copyright status of the originals. -Pete (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And if there was indeed an OTRS ticket opened, maybe somebody with access could check if that ticket still exists, and whether these things were investigated, and any useful conclusions reached, there? -Pete (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We have no VRT (neé OTRS) volunteers on enWS so you'd need to hunt down someone elsewhere, and without a ticket number finding any such email could be a tall order. That the permission and attendant ticket number was not noted on-wiki almost certainly means there was no acceptable permission recorded. Xover (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I very much agree, but the unequivocal assertion by billinghurst seems significant. I know him to be careful about such things. Hoping he will comment before this is closed. -Pete (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

WIPO Copyright Treaty
Is template PD-UN appropriate here? Although WIPO is one of the 15 specialized agencies of the United Nations, the treaty appears to be a document issued WITHOUT a UN symbol. And according to the terms of use of WIPO, CC license is only applicable to those documents published as of November 2016. Teetrition (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WIPO is part of the UN. It is a public domain document for our purposes as an equivalent to a gov-edict of WIPO as part of the UN. Happy for a better suggestion for an applicable licence or a wording update, though you couldn't possibly be saying that it is not able to be reproduced. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Even though it was published in 1996, if WIPO the document under a cc-by-4.0 as of 2016, then we can re-license it. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting case. UN policy was tightened considerably since the text of our template (see the equivalent templates at Commons; we need to update here), and fairly clearly does not apply to this treaty.The WIPO's own Open access policy explicitly only applies to post-2016 publications (which this treaty predates by a decade). As a negotiated treaty the most reasonable author for copyright purposes is the WIPO itself, alternately one could view it as a collective work of the contracting parties (in which case we would need unanimous consent for licensing, in which case… forget it). Since the WIPO is not itself a competent legislative body, and the treaty is not self-executing (it was implemented in the US through compatible regulations included in the DMCA, not adopted as-is), it is not itself an edict of government. In other words, the only path to hosting it is if the WIPO itself considers it to fall ex post facto under their Open access policy, or otherwise licenses it under a compatible license.In view of that I'm trying to get a request for clarification to them through a volunteer that is or was recently Wikimedian in Residence at WIPO, and failing that through their other contact channels. I think the odds are actually pretty good that they'll considered this covered by the Open access policy, but we'll need confirmation of that. Xover (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Constitution of the Soviet Union (1936)
The PD-EdictGov template does not apply here because the English translation was not produced by a government. It was published by a private company in the UK in 1978, and would still (I think) be under copyright in both the UK and the US. Jcitawy (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the source of the translation, or the reasoning for a nomination, however, the work's source clearly states that it has been released into the public domain, and that should be given validity, and a seemingly legitimate release statement overrides the hypothetical of who did own the copyright. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The work was originally published in print by Red Star Press Ltd., in Joseph Stalin: Works, Volume 14 (London, 1978), and we would need a proof that this particular publication of translated texts was released into public domain. The fact that marxists.org released their 2008 reprint into the public domain is imo not a proof that the 1978 publication had been released too, especially as they do not say what they founded their their release into public domain on, and there are considerable doubts that they had the right to do so. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to per TE(æ)A,ea. below. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Jan Kameníček: From my experience, the public domain declaration is for the transcription/retyping work, not for the original. But the Works printing may not be original; I’m sending for the volume. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep (the TL) as, due to simultaneous publication (distribution) in the United States under Red Press’s American division. I have a copy on hand, so if it isn’t deleted, I can scan it in and post it here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * billinghurst, Jan Kameníček: Given a lack of opposition, I’m going to make a scan in the next few days. I also wanted your opinions on another item in that volume, “On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R.: Report delivered at the Extraordinary Congress of Soviets of the U.S.S.R.” This was a speech delivered on the floor regarding the Constitution Commission. I mention it because I believe that it would qualify as . I will scan it in in any case, but I await your opinions before uploading it. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I always hesitate about PD-EdictGov and I would also appreciate if some help page explained it in more detail, but it seems to me that the original text should fall under this license. I suppose that the English translation was distributed in the US as was the previous volume and so it falls under PD-US-no notice, right?
 * As for the Constitution of the Soviet Union (1936), if no opposing arguments come within a few more days, it can be imo closed as kept. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that there is very little case law on GovEdict in the US, though there was a case in the past couple of years which came down with a decision allowing American state government publications generated by a private company om behalf of that government to be released into the public domain (was discussed here at enWS with links). So my understanding is that essentially if it is a government that is speaking in its official sense for the public's broader information then it is available. As we only look to comply with US copyright law then we have a broader capability to reproduce the edicts from any government.  Edict here is acts, regulations, declarations, official documentation at a broad audience; so not one to one communications, etc. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * billinghurst, Jan Kameníček (sorry for all the pings): See File:Works of Stalin 14 contents.pdf if there’s anything more in here, and File:Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.pdf for the actual document. I’ll probably work on it quite soon if no one beats me to the punch. Also, I marked it just in case, but should it be moved? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As I had written before, I am always hesitant about PD-EdictGov, but IMO File:Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.pdf can be uploaded to Commons under PD-RU-exempt. However, some texts in the File:Works of Stalin 14 contents.pdf, like "On an article by Engels", do not look like they fall under this license. Commons require that the author's works are free in the US and the source country. The license tag in the Stalin's author page at ru.ws says that his works published after 1917 are copyrighted until 2028. So if these texts cannot be licensed as edicts of Russian government, they are free neither in the US nor in Russia. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note here is a version of the 1932 consitution, a draft of the 1936 constitution , Stalin's speech on the 1936 constituyion and a 1945 Embassy translation , I haven't been able to find a scan online of the 1938 translation, Constitution: Fundamental Law of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Soviet Union: State Publishing House of Political Literature, 1938, which is likely the original version of the translation. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To all involved: I have proofread Index:Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.pdf. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Question: Why is File:Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.pdf not within Russian PD? I think the original Russian text should be covered under PD-RU-exempt. If the translation is also allowable by PD-US-no notice, is the file eligible to be transferred to Commons?廣九直通車 (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 廣九直通車: I didn’t look at Russian law. I know that it’s in the public domain in the United States, so I uploaded it locally. If it meets Russian public-domain standards, I certainly have no objection to pushing it to Commons. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Provided this text was ever enacted as the constitution of the USSR—which I am going to go ahead and assume—the Russian-language original clearly falls under PD-RU-exempt.I see above assertions that this translation is covered by PD-US-no notice, but I see no specific explanation of why this is so. In order for it to be no-notice it would have had to be first published in the US without a valid copyright notice. I see no evidence provided above that the relevant publication did not have a valid copyright notice (@TE(æ)A,ea.: if your meaning is that you have visually inspected a physical copy of the publication and found no notice then please say so explicitly; just saying it has no notice without specifying how you know is not very useful for future wiki-spelunkers).Additionally, in order for a multiply-published work (as I see referred above) to qualify has "first published in the US" it must have been published in the US no more than thirty days later than wherever actual first publication occurred. This is a quite rigid limit and requires much better evidence than seeing both UK and US on the colophon. While a specific date is usually not possible to ascertain with 100% accuracy, reasonable research must be made (and documented) to establish a reasonable likelihood that foreign publication happened "on or about" date X, that US publication happened "on or about" date Y, and that the probable intervals between the two is less than 30 days.@MarkLSteadman: You mention a 1938 likely first publication of the translation. Is that the same as File:Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.pdf? I rather understood that to be a partial scan of Joseph Stalin: Works, vol. 14 (1978). London: Red Star Press Ltd.? On what do you base the claim of a 1938 first publication of the translation, and why do we assume this is the same translation? And if they are the same and this translation was first published in 1938, who was the translator and what else do we know about that publication? Even if there's no scan online it should be possible to find it in a library or archive somewhere (TE(æ)A,ea. in particular is good at finding stuff like this in libraries).I think it's very likely that there's an early translation of this, and a lot of the communist-leaning publishers didn't—for whatever reason—include copyright notices, so finding a PD translation should be eminently possible. But based on the information provided above I am more confused than persuaded for the specific translation under discussion here. Possibly I'm just having a senior moment, but I'm not seeing the evidence needed to conclude "PD" here. --Xover (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. And looking at the scan of Works (1978), its preface actually says That certainly suggests that Red Star Press may have facilitated the translation and that this is its first publication. The text in the preface doesn't rule out that they used a previously published translation, of course, but they also discuss having checked the German and French translations so it certainly could be read to mean an original translation (if you're republishing an existing translation you usually don't check translations in other languages). This scan certainly has no visible notice, but since it was published after 1977 a notice was not strictly required. Works published 1978 through 28 February 1989 could be registered up to 5 years after publication even if they contained no notice (and would get either pma. 70 or pub. + 95 terms). However, searching the Stanford database (which contains renewals up to 1978) and the Copyright Office's database, reveal no entries for this under any probable search term ("Stalin" in title or author). That makes it eligible for PD-US-no-notice-post-1977. Iff this was this translation's first publication (cf. Mark's mention above that the translation was first published in 1938). Xover (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Xover: I’ve long since returned the book, so I can’t scan any more of it at this point and I can just tell you what I remember. I received a physical copy of a book, and was able to examine it directly. The book contained no notice. It was published in 1978. I will take you at your word that there was no curative notice and is thus  (the Commons license). I didn’t save my contemporaneous research, but I know that Red Star Press had (has?) an American division, and that they published books in both places. I don’t know why they would delay publication in U.S. contra U.K. I doubt the usual sources of evidence (newspaper advertisements &c.) will be useful here; the evidence is more circumstantial. I don’t know if there is an earlier English translation, but I wouldn’t be surprised as to this work as it is politically important. While I didn’t see any volumes other than no. 14, based on bibliographic information available to me, it does appear that Red Star started publishing the “new series” based on Stalin’s new works (post-1934) in 1978. There is no indication anywhere that the translation of the Constitution was copied from an earlier source. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was exactly what I had in mind. I had a look through newspapers from around 1978 but could find no trace of this. To make probable a simultaneous publication we would have to find something like a publishers catalog including it whose date is known. Or an ad for it in a different book by this publisher whose date is known. Or possibly a secondary source that discusses either the publisher or the work in a way that dates it. But see also below regarding a possible (probable?) 1937 translation that would predate this if it is identical. Xover (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * More research, greater confusion…This indicates that an English-language translation was published by the State Publishing House of Political Literature in 1938. In addition, I found a 1976 edition by Progress Publishers that predates the Red Star Press edition by two years. This latter edition lists . Given the timing etc., in view of the previously mentioned 1938 edition, it seems likely that the State Publishing House of Political Literature published an official(ish) English-language translation in 1937, and that this was what was used for Progress Publishers' editions, at least up until the 1976 revised edition (when Progress Publishers seem to indicate an original translation from the Russian).Given the existence of an official(ish) English-language edition I find it unlikely that a wholly new translation was made absent specific evidence suggesting that (cf. the copyright claim for new translation from Russian by Progress Publishers). That makes probable a 1937 first publication in the USSR (we can just use Russia as a pragmatic simplification).Since about 1919, the State Publishing House of Political Literature (and all its several hundred siblings, commonly known, I think, as Politizdat) was the state publishing monopoly (before 1919 it was the party publishing organ). So I think it's reasonable to call the translation an "official" translation of the constitution. Official translations of the things exempted by PD-RU-exempt are also exempt, so this translation was PD in Russia on publication.So… The 1937 translation should be PD-RU-exempt and PD in its country of origin on the URAA date. If published outside the US in 1937 without observing the US-required formalities, and PD in its country of origin on the URAA date, it is PD-US-no notice (or possibly PD-US-no renewal). This requires finding a scan of the 1937 edition to verify that it has no notice (or that it has one). Alternately, if we can find a couple of contemporary publications by the State Publishing House of Political Literature to establish a pattern of including / not including a copyright notice.In addition, the recent-ish clarification of PD-EdictGov expanded its scope to include not only works that have the "force of law" (which translations usually do not, even if official) but also works whose authors are "authorized to speak the law" (i.e. any competent legislative assembly). An official translation of the constitution is somewhat of a stretch as having been authored by the Supreme Soviet, but if I squint just right I might just be able to convince myself that for a constitution published by the one-and-only state-monopoly publishing organ we're close enough to call it PD-EdictGov.If either of these apply there remains the question of whether the text published in Works vol. 14 is identical to the text published in 1937. That will need further research. Xover (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My general conclusion when I dug into it aligns with this. Basically a. There is evidence of a publication in both Moscow as well as by International Publishers in New York in 1937 / 1938 of an "official" translation and b. without comparing the actual published texts it will be hard to determine one way or the other definitively MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Montreal Gazette published a full translation of the draft of the constitution on June 26, 1936. And by references elsewhere it seems The New York Times also published this draft on the same day. That suggests a coordinated release to the press of an already translated text.Several articles of the translation published in the Times appear in The Herald-News for June 30, 1936. These are described as having been "cabled from Moscow" (but that could just mean a foreign correspondent in Moscow, not "Moscow" itself). In any case, the quoted articles are not identical with our text, for example using "toilers" where our text uses "the working people" (art. 125).According to The Hartford Courant for November 28, 1936: "fifteen million copies" of the constitution (presumably the draft since it wasn't adopted until Dec. 5) have been distributed in "five score languages". And the Soviet ambassador is throwing shindigs at the embassy celebrating it. It's certainly a massive propaganda push.The Seattle Star for February 4, 1937 advertises "the first official text of the constitution … in English, translated by Ivar Spector, University of Washington professor of oriental studies". Apparently it's a pamphlet for sale in the uni. bookstore. If it's the first translation then an official translation has not been distributed yet despite it having been adopted two months previous and the drafts apparently having been widely distributed in translation.But all in all, I find a minor fever-pitch obsession in the news with the draft constitution up to about the end of November 1936. Thereafter there's some references to the new constitution (mostly saying Stalin is a dictator and the constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on) through the beginning of 1937. And then it goes entirely quiet. There are no mentions of publications of translations after the early 1937 Spector translation. Xover (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a partly official, partly original, translation in Source Book on European Governments (1937). It uses the official translation of the draft, combined with original translation of the 43 amendments finally adopted. This translation also uses "toilers" in Art. 125, so it is not identical to our text.There's a copyright registration for the Spector translation: .There is an original translation in International Conciliation, Issue 327 from Februarry 1937, by a Prof. Clarence A. Manning at Columbia University, New York. It intersperses Russian words in parenthesis where there is no good English translation. It also uses "toilers" and is unlikely to be the direct source of our text.Aha, but in LeBuffe, Francis P. Jurisprudence, with cases to illustrate principles (1938) there's is a quote of Art. 4 claiming to be from the 1937 International Publishers translation. . Contrast that with our text which reads: . These are clearly not the same translation.But the Department of State Bulletin (1939) contains a full quote of Art. 125 from a translation published by the the American Russian Institute:
 * In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:
 * a) freedom of speech;
 * b) freedom of the press;
 * c) freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
 * d) freedom of street processions and demonstrations.
 * These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.
 * Compare this with [Page:Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.pdf/33|our text]]:
 * In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:
 * a) freedom of speech;
 * b) freedom of the press;
 * c) freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
 * d) freedom of street processions and demonstrations;
 * These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.
 * This seems exceedingly likely to be the same translation. Xover (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The American Russian Institute version is on Hathi, Art. 125 on p. 35. It says it is based on the 1938 edition by the State Publishing House of the U.S.S.R, MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.
 * This seems exceedingly likely to be the same translation. Xover (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The American Russian Institute version is on Hathi, Art. 125 on p. 35. It says it is based on the 1938 edition by the State Publishing House of the U.S.S.R, MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Szilard Petition
According to this page, A Petition to the President of the United States, is believed to be in the public domain. Therefore it seems probable, that this had simply no copyright notice on it, when it was first published. Also the National Archives Catalog states "Access: Unrestricted / Use: Unrestricted".

But after more research there I now have some doubts. This article states, that it was declassified in 1961 and first published in 1963. This seems to refer to "The Atomic Age" by Grodzins and Rabinowitch (1963). This book has a copyright notice.

But according to a scan by the University of California it was not declassified in 1961, but in 1957. This could suggest a not as formal first publication in 1961, which was refered to as "declassified" in the article (speculation).

In the end, the question is, what the correct copyright template (is it possible that USGov applies, even while Oppenheimer tried to supress the petitions circulation at Los Alamos?) is or whether it should be deleted (which would be a bit sad, as I would presume Szilard would be pleased with a wide distribution of this document). Habitator terrae (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on the signatories, it looks to be . TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, then, only to be sure: In the English Wikipedia they thought PD-USGov wouldn't apply to the Franck Report. Is also (and not only the authors) the creation of the Petition enough "Government" to be public domain? Habitator terrae (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Habitator terrae: For the Franck report, I could see an argument being made the other way, as it appears that that report was made by a secret (likely non-governmental) committee, and then presented. This petition was not the result of such extensive out-of-government-employment work, so I don’t think that concern germane. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I changed the copyright template here at Wikisource, but after that, when I searched for the correct template at Wikimedia Commons (perhaps c:template:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE), another issue came up: Is it sure, that the signatories, who worked at the Metallurgical Laboratory ("However, in January 1942, Dr. A. H. Compton, Director of the Metallurgical Project, decided to concentrate the research at one location. To this end, certain contractual arrangements were made between the Government, represented by the OSRD and later by the Manhattan Engineer District, and the contractor selected, the University of Chicago.") were government employees or were they only contractors? If Szilard were employed by the University of Chicago and not by the Metallurgical Project itself, this copyright template would be incorrect (and would result in doubts about "public domain"-status and therefore deletion?). Habitator terrae (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Habitator terrae: I think that the “contractual arrangements” were for working space, not employees (based on the surrounding text from that quote). In the modern sense of the term, a “contractor” would generally not be trusted with military secrets as important as nuclear energy. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * w:Los Alamos National Security, c:Template:PD-LosAlamos (although of course that was very later)? Habitator terrae (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Habitator terrae: I think it’s pretty similar, but slightly different. Los Alamos (and a few other DoE facilities, like Idaho NL) are a mix of federally-run and privately-owned. In this case, the “Metallurgical Project” was an idea in the minds of a few physicists, and the U.S. government needed to rent out laboratories for them to carry out experiments. So, everything done by the “Metallurgical Project” is U.S. government work, and that is the case no matter where the Project existed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You have convinced me, but because of the precautionary principle, one implausible, but cogitable, speculation: Couldn't it be, that the leader of the Metallurgical Project w:Arthur Compton was still dejure part of the University of Chigago (he worked there) and he therefore made the scientists for pretence employees of the university? I'm only asking, because I wanna be sure, before I change the template on Commons. Habitator terrae (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

How is this a work of the US government? It would appear to be the work of one person, and countersigned by others. The author didn't publish it, and that someone else has published it without the authority of the author is someone else's breach of copyright, or publishing under public interest, not through a loss of copyright. Seems that it would be PMD + 70 years for an unpublished work. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I would expect that is because they are members of the government drafting documents on government policy related to their official duties? But in general I have a hard time following this area of the law as I would expect that mailing a petition to the government would count as publication, since it has an implicit ask for further distribution? MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So revert to old copyright template (or delete)? Habitator terrae (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC) PS: @billinghurst: Perhaps of interest, don't know wether it also appeared in Leo Szilard, his version of the facts.

Three images in Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products/Opinion of the Court
The three images listed were uploaded and later deleted at Commons as copyright violations. I have uploaded them here and returned them to the work. They form part of our issue about de minimis works that are part of works that are otherwise within scope. your contribution.
 * File:Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products page 6 image.jpg
 * File:Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products page 15 image.jpg
 * File:Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products page 7 image.jpg

Until we have a clear approach, this is how I will manage these undelete and migrates.

The license on them is not one of ours, and should be part of a discussion, or we should have an interim copyright tag for such images migrated and under discussion. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The licence is a category-specific version of our usual, for SCOTUS opinions. The PDF is of a Supreme Court opinion, which is  ; and the images here, being derived from that opinion, retain that (lack of) copyright (status). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The Mysterious Ship
Written in 1902, but not published until 1959. Previously discussed at Copyright_discussions/Archives/2016, but I'd appreciate a confirmation that this work qualifies for PD-US-no-renewal. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on the renewal notice from that discussion, I would agree. This is not a mere technical issue; Derleth’s heirs didn’t have the right to renew Lovecraft’s works, and they could not claim that by calling Lovecraft a pseudonym of Derleth. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Prosfilaes: Do you have a take on this? Has your stance / understanding of the issue evolved in the 8 years since the last discussion?If this is a renewal by Derleth's heirs, then in order for it to be valid Derleth would have had to own the copyright for it. It seems unlikely Lovecraft sold it to him since it's juvenilia. Was Derleth Lovecraft's literary executor? Did he buy the writings from the state? What's the theory here? Xover (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It's still got a renewal, but that renewal is incorrect in several ways. I don't think it would hold up in court, but I'm not positive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The Times/1939/Obituary/Arthur Irwin Dasent
Published in 1939, so does not qualify for PD-US. Might qualify for no/defective notice or no renewal? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 05:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If we have some evidence, that the London Times was distributed in the US too (which I believe it was), it can be considered to be in the public domain in the US because of the lacking copyright notice. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but I am very reluctant to make such assumptions without clear evidence and significant supporting research. Xover (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The copyright term under the 1988 act for works of unknown authorship was 50 years so it was in the public domain in the UK from 1990 until being revived by the extension in 1995 to +70 again on 1996-01-01, which is the URAA date, before finally expiring in 2010. That means it isn't covered under PD-1996. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, so if it's a UK work it was restored to pub. +95 (1939 + 95 = 2034) in the US by the URAA. But if it was simultaneously published in the US (within 30 days) it is a US work subject to US requirements and ineligible for restoration under the URAA. So the questions are 1) was it published in the US within 30 days, 2) did it contain a correctly formed copyright notice in the US, and, if so, 3) was the copyright renewed. I'm not sure how we would determine #1 to any reasonable level of certainty without pretty in-depth research. #2 should be possible to determine through finding a scan of a copy held in a US archive, and #3, if needed, is the usual renewal search (except in periodicals instead of books, but...). I don't think it is unlikely, per se, I'm just unwilling to make the necessary assumptions absent actual evidence. Xover (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So, not having a proof of the work being in the PD in the US, I think we should consider it as potentially copyrighted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

A Sting in the Tale and Introducing Jesus
These works by Roy Clements (https://royclements.net/) are available on his website, but it says "The copyright for all the materials on this website is retained by Roy Clements." I can find no CC-BY-SA 3.0 markings on his website, and the PDFs of the books have no markings to indicate they've been released under a free license. As per this, the author page of Roy Clements should be deleted as well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Also includes copyrighted quotations from the NIV. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * per nom. --Xover (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Dr Clements has agreed with me by email that he is releasing the books under cc-by-sa. Could you tell me what I should do to confirm this? Marnanel (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Marnanel: If Mr. Clements updates https://royclements.net/books/ (or makes a separate copyright page, or something equivalent) with a clear statement that either all the books, with all parts, or lists the specific books and parts, that are licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 that will be sufficient. An admin can verify the statement and document it here. And having these under a compatible license would be awesome!However, be aware that this is not quite as easy as it sounds. If these books were professionally published at some point (which the website suggests), the author will have signed a contract with the publisher assigning some of their rights to the publisher. Such contracts vary considerably, but a common feature is terms that prevent the author from doing what is proposed here (it could be through exclusive publication rights or some other mechanism). If so, there needs to be permission from the publisher as well. In addition, if there are illustrations, book covers, etc. that were created by third parties, these have separate copyright and Mr. Clements does not automatically have standing to license these. For example, the PDF of God and the Gurus contains a collage of photos that are credited to "Cover photos by courtesy of Camera Press". Camera Press' courtesy permission for use on the cover of a printed book does not automatically extend to giving Mr. Clements the right to license the photos to others, especially not under a permissive license.Copyright law is, sadly, incredibly complicated, and often works in ways normal people think is very unintuitive and strange. But the bottom line is that Mr. Clements, despite obviously being what we normally refer to as "the author of the books", must assess both copyrightable contributions by others and any exclusive rights or other bars in contracts with publishers. If you're more than averagely up on copyright and contract law you can kinda sorta navigate this on your own, but as a general policy I would advice authors to consult a competent intellectual property lawyer before making any moves. The volunteer community on Wikisource will make our own assessment of such issues in order to manage our own liability (i.e. to make sure we do not host any copyright violations), but we cannot assess Mr. Clements' liability in terms of contractual obligations or rights to third-party contributions. Xover (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Marnanel: I see https://royclements.net/books/ now includes the statement, but there is still no statement regarding possible third-party copyrights like the NIV quotes, cover designs, and the Camera Press photo collage.I am also concerned by the phrasing "share and quote": the CC BY-SA license doesn't just allow sharing and quoting, it allows remixing. In legal terms someone could take Mr. Clements' texts and modify them to argue for something directly contrary to the author's beliefs or convictions. Copyright law's moral rights would prevent such a modified version from claiming it was written by Mr. Clements (but would still need to credit Mr. Clements as the original author due to the attribution requirement in the license), but his texts could still be used as the basis for something which he would be vehemently opposed to. Just as an example, if these had been books about preserving nature, someone could legally modify them to argue in favour of paving over national parks to enable industrial development, or abolishing pollution control legislation to improve profits for polluting industries. I am not familiar with Mr. Clements' political or theological (or moral or...) views, but I am sure one may come up with examples of uses that would be as offensive to his views as the nature preservation example would be to someone with strong views on that subject. Are we certain that Mr. Clements' release under this license is a fully informed one?Copyright law is complicated and I strongly recommend seeking advice from a legal professional specialising in copyright in cases such as this. Xover (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the work has been released under the appropriate licence satisfactorily. I am not happy with the text being copypasted here without the original PDF being uploaded to Commons, but that is for a different discussion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:24, 28 March 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)

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)

Works by Cemach Feldstein (1884–1944)
First published in 1942 and 1943 outside the US, and later translated by Wikisource from various subsequent reprintings. Feldstein died in 1944, so with Lithuania's pma. 70 term they were still in copyright on the URAA date (1996). The originals are thus in copyright in the US until 2023 2038 /2039. Xover (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I can't find out if Lithuania was pma 70 in 1996. They signed the Berne Convention in 1994 and ratified it in 1996, so they could have still been life+50. We should record the rules in 1996 (or the URAA date) somewhere, because I've looked them up a couple times and had no list to add them to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point. Lithuania is an EU member so the current pma. 70 term is retroactive, but on 1 January 1996 it was pma. 50 (Lithuania was pma. 50 from at least 1994 until 2003, I believe). Since Feldstein died in 1944 the Lithuanian copyright on the last of his non-posthumously published works should have expired in 1944 + 50 + 1 = 1995 (before being retroactively restored to pma. 70). That should make them public domain in the US unless there's simultaneous publication involved (which would also require correct notice and renewal, so pretty unlikely). Xover (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Lithuania was a part of the Soviet Union, which had a 25-year (later 50-year) term until after Lithuania gained independence. Thus, Feldstein’s works should be in the public domain owing to that fact. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Soviet terms are mainly a factor for the successor states (the satellites that joined the CIS). The Baltics are considered to have been occupied countries so it is generally their pre-occupation laws that are relevant. Xover (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The pre-1940 law was the 1911 Russian Empire copyright statute which had a 50-year term. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's really irrelevant. Circular 38a from the US Copyright Office says that Lithuanian-US copyright relations are "Lithuania · Berne (Paris) Dec. 14, 1994; Phonograms Jan. 27, 2000; WTO May 31, 2001; WCT Mar. 6, 2002; WPPT May 20, 2002; VIP Jan. 1, 2019". If that date for Berne is correct, then 1 January 1996 is the only day that matters, at which Lithuania had to be at least life+50 to be in conformance with Berne. If it didn't come into effect until mid-1996, as per the ratification I found online, then the URAA date would be later in 1996, but still life+50.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2023 (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 —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)

Lehrer's translations where original would be under copyright: followup
Followup to Copyright_discussions/Archives/2020: —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "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
 * 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:

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


 * 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)
 * On the other hand:

Absente depuis quinze jours, Au bout du fil je vous appelle Que trouverai-je à mon retour? Absent for a fortnight, At the end of the line I'll call you What will I find when I return? I've been away two weeks or so, And that is why I'm calling you For any news that I should know.
 * French lyrics
 * Translation (machine)
 * Lehrer's lyrics
 * Allô, allô, James, quelles nouvelles
 * Allô, allô, James, quelles nouvelles
 * Hello, hello, James, what news
 * Hello, hello, James? Tell me, what's new?
 * }
 * 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 Et Pierre pour Casanova Et moi, moi qui étais le plus fier Moi, moi je me prenais pour moi And Pierre, Casanova And I, who was the proudest, I thought I was was me Jojo, Voltaire and Debussy, And I, who always was the proudest, I imagined I was—me!
 * Jojo se prenait pour Voltaire
 * Jojo se prenait pour Voltaire
 * Jojo thought he was Voltaire
 * Pierre thought he was Casanova,
 * }
 * —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 16:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Portal:Toodyay Letters
I started splitting these letters into their own works. However, I am suspicious about their copyright status, for two reasons: Here is the history of these documents: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 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)

Amelia Earhart's Survival and Repatriation: Myth or Reality?
This text from 2005, added here in 2009, is described as a "free informational release" in the header, but listed as PD-release. There are several issues here: Any info? SnowyCinema (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) This work is unsourced, and a quick search doesn't give me the actual paper, so information about it is limited. And most of the info about it online that I can find is from after 2009, indicating they may know about the paper in the first place from us.
 * 2) What is a "free informational release"? If this was the rationale for the public domain release assumption, I am skeptical that a mere statement of "free informational release" is sufficient.
 * 3) Is this stated as being in the public domain somewhere else? There's both an editor and a main author involved with this essay, according to the text, so both would have to consent to a public-domain release.
 * "Alex was looking for a place to post this online, and I suggested he submit it here. According to him it has been published twice, as appendices to the books Lost Flight of Amelia Earhart by Carol L.Dow and Legerdemain by David K. Bowman.--Srleffler (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)" So apparently the user who posted this was Alex himself, but can we be sure? SnowyCinema (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks legit to me, ideally we'd get Dr Mandel to send an email to OTRS to confirm, but I don't think it's likely to be copyvio. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if it were not copyvio, it does not seem to have been published anywhere outside the WS and so it is not in compliance with WS:WWI. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If it was only published in appendices it may fail as an excerpt. But that's of course assuming the work really was published in the way the 2009 comment suggests. SnowyCinema (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Finally found some proof of the study's publication at . I think the fact it was published in appendices does not matter too much and it can be considered a work on its own. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it again, I have changed my mind for . I think we can trust the work was posted here by Alex Mandel and at the same time it can be considered a work on its own and not a mere extract. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Albert Einstein to Franklin D. Roosevelt - August 2, 1939
Being that the latest author died in 1966, the other in 1955, this work is probably still under copyright (since unpublished works require pma 70). And I'm skeptical of the claim that this presumably private letter to Roosevelt was published as the license claims. SnowyCinema (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you see the information on the Talk page about its publication? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be shocked if no one has gone through his archives and published them they may have a later copyright date but I doubt they are unpublished (with permission of the archive). Also, I am not sure why this is presumed private to begin with. "publication occurs when one or more copies or phonorecords are distributed to a member of the public who is not subject to any express or implied restrictions concerning the disclosure of the content of that work." What restrictions on disclosure are there if you just mail a letter to the whitehouse saying go do policy X? Isn't the expectation FDR is going to tell people the contents? MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * On re-examination, it looks like this letter was published in the, which, according to Commons, is in the public domain due to lack of copyright renewal. But, it's always difficult to determine the exact status of these sorts of things without a scan to back them. I don't think I'd go as far as to assume a letter to the president should assume a publication after, even if most of the time it is, but that's just me. SnowyCinema (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * SnowyCinema: You can read most of the report here, but the title page is missing. I agree with you as to the general-publication issue—the exception only applies when it is expected that the letter will be generally published after delivery, like a letter to the editor or a manuscript submitted to a magazine. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the expectation is that these will get released as part of their public papers as well as shared within government. I am not a lawyer in terms of how this has been interpreted by the courts. But also how public officials with archives and people going through them, e.g. presumably counts as publication of Einstein's love letters, but the various books that did the same with this letter doesn't count?. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The Secret History
This page has no source and no license, but appears to be this 1935 edition. Now, according to Loeb Classical Library, "it's probable that all volumes published before 1939 are public domain in the US", but I don't see a rationale for this and I haven't been able to confirm this myself. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It's probable. Having looked at a bunch of Loeb's, I've never seen a copyright notice on an older one, and I've never found a renewal for one. It would be this volume at IA, and I don't see a copyright notice on it, I don't find a renewal for it, and Dewing was American, so whatever the circumstances of the printing, the URAA wouldn't have restored it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Notes and Queries( Later volumes)..
Starting the discussion here, because one volume Index:Notes and Queries - Series 12 - Volume 10.djvu proved to have contributions from authors that were apparently active until at least 1970, which led to the volume being deleted on Commons. A local copy now exists. However, I strongly suspect that whilst these are unquestionably PD-US (given the publication dates.), some contributions to the publication are not necessarily out of copyright globally. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ShakespeareFan00: Insofar as the volume are indisputably in the public domain in the United States, I don’t see a need to seek out copyrighted contributions here (as opposed to on Commons). If editors on Commons find such still-copyrighted contributions, the files can be localized at that point; but it is not necessary for English Wikisource to proactively seek out such contributions, given the U.S. copyright status. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My concern wasn't the specfic volume but others.. In any event the remaining volumes of the 12th series ,and possibly the 13th Series can be uploaded locally, We'd then have a complete run? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The Scientific Ape and The Clockmaker by Robert Louis Stevenson
Both of these works were first published in 2005 (see Parfect, Ralph. "Robert Louis Stevenson's "The Clockmaker" and "The Scientific Ape": Two Unpublished Fables." English Literature in Transition, 1880-1920 48, no. 4 (2005): 387-400. https://doi.org/10.2487/Y008-J320-0428-0742.) which I believe means they are not out of copyright as a result. Chrisguise (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Chrisguise: If a work is unpublished until 2003 its US copyright term is pma. 70, so works by authors who died before 1954 are in the public domain in the US (and, obviously, in countries with general pma. 70 copyright terms). Xover (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe it is copyrighted in the UK until 2039 so it would need to be hosted locally. There is the also the question about whether the following editorial revisions might make it a derivative work with a separate copyright (I suspect not) t: "The text has been rendered so as to allow it to read as easily as possible, while preserving its more significant idiosyncrasies. I have corrected most of Stevenson's misspellings (e.g. "nieghbourhood" for "neighbourhood") and faulty punctuation (e.g. erratic use of quotation marks). I have kept original spellings, however unusual, where they are repeated (e.g. "animalculae" as the singular as well as the plural of the noun "animalculus"), or where they seem to be typical of orthographic practices of the day. Where the standard spelling has changed since Stevenson's lifetime (e.g. "caraffe" to "carafe"; "cocoanut" to "coconut"), and where adoption of upper- or lower-case letters is unorthodox or inconsistent ("tory" to "Tory"), I have preserved Stevenson's usage. I have omitted Stevenson's deletions from the text. Whereon revision Stevenson has added words, I have included these in the text, but have not indicated in the text itself that they are a later addition. Finally, I have changed all of Stevenson's underlinings to italicizations." MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see any of that being copyrightable in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is copyrighted in the UK until 2039? Xover (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * From "Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988"
 * Copyright in the following types of work lasts until 31 December 2039:
 * unpublished literary, dramatic and musical works of which the author has died (unpublished in the sense of the proviso to s. 2(3) of the 1956 Act);
 * From the 1956 act:
 * Provided that if before the death of the author none of the following acts had been done, that is to say,—
 * (a) the publication of the work,
 * (b) the performance of the work in public,
 * (c) the offer for sale to the public of records of the work, and
 * (d) the broadcasting of the work,
 * the copyright shall continue to subsist until the end of the period of fifty years from the end of the calendar year which includes the earliest occasion on which one of those acts is done.
 * MarkLSteadman (talk) MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. enWP has a cogent summary of the relevant issue too. Definitely in copyright in the UK and ineligible for Commons. Should still be fine in the US and eligible to be hosted here. Xover (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @MarkLSteadman@Prosfilaes@Xover Thanks everyone. If I get around to replacing the unsourced versions currently on WS with scan backed ones, I'll make sure I only upload it to WS, noting I'll probably need to redact the rest of the paper that is wrapped around them. Chrisguise (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

F. R. Benson's Richard II
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)

"Copenhagen Document" (1990)
This can be found online in a few places 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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:
 * US gov is a co-author and therefore a (co-?)owner of the work
 * US law declares its own works PD in the US
 * 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. 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." ("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, 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  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  . "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)

Grandson, on thy Second Birthday
This page has no source. The only asserted date I could find is 1934, on the author page, but there's no indication where it was published, or whether copyright renewals have been checked. After checking renewal records from 1961 and 1962  it seems plausible that the copyright was never renewed, but without knowing where it was published or whether the 1934 date is accurate, it's tough to say with confidence. (I did a few web searches including Internet Archive and have not been able to find this poem. There is a different poem by Sheehan that has an interesting OTRS release, so I searched Commons as well, but found nothing to match this file.) -Pete (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Though if it was only published in Ireland, or the UK, there wouldn't have been need for a renewal, would there ? -- Beardo (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, its US copyright would have been restored by the URAA in 1996 to a publication +95 years term. We need to know where it was first published in order to determine that its copyright has expired with any plausible level of certainty. Xover (talk) 08:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Procedural question: How should one proceed in a case like this? (For my own edification, hoping to get a better feel for Wikisource processes.) Feel to reply on my user talk or email. -Pete (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand what it is you're asking? If we can't find evidence that at least makes it plausible that it is in the public domain or compatibly licensed it will have to be deleted. But others may yet do research and uncover more information, and in cases like this I tend to do at least a cursory amount before closing to see if something obvious was missed. In other words, if you cannot find any more information yourself then it's just a matter of hoping someone else does before it comes time to close this thread (and WS:CV is even more backlogged than usual right now, so it might be a while). Xover (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Xover: Sorry, I guess my question was vague. But your answer addresses it fine. Basically, I'm making more posts to the boards lately than I have before as I try to help with the copyright tag backlog and would be happy for any feedback or tips on how I'm using them. If just letting this one alone after making the report is the way to go, that makes sense; but if I was expected to escalate it at a certain point to the deletion board, I'd have wanted to know about that. -Pete (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Kaushîtaki-brâhmana-upanishad
Insufficient information is provided about the translation to determine copyright status. As far as I can tell, it seems to have been part of this 1991 publication which is almost certainly copyrighted. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , evidence exists that the translation is default-copyrighted. SnowyCinema (talk) 20:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It may not have been that publication, he died in 1984, but in any case it was URAA restored. MarkLSteadman (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Petro Poroshenko's Inaugural Address
This was published in 2014, so it would appear to be copyrighted, BUT it is public domain in Ukraine, where it was published. BUT, in my understanding, Wikisource operates under United States copyright laws (as opposed to Ukrainian ones). If this was an "edict of government" it would be eligible for PD in the United States, but it is not of a legal nature, it is a public speech. Is this public domain for Wikisource? Cremastra (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t thank it is in the public domain in Ukraine. The only exception which seems relevant is Article 10(c), which seems to track the edicts-of-government exception. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hm, you're right. I assumed it was because the tag was there (which in retrospect is a bad kind of assumption to make). Cremastra (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The presidency website now has a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Deed license but I don't think it had it historically (all rights reserved) when this speech was posted: https://web.archive.org/web/20140607165241/http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/30488.html. Of course I can't find it on the current website, and it mentions a 2022 cut off date so I don't think it applies retroactively. MarkLSteadman (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Index:Indian Philosophy Volume 1.djvu
This seems to be a London published edition from 1948, not a 1927 one. The author died in 1975. Can someone please check the copyright status in more detail?. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It was reprinted in London in 1948, but this newest changes come from the second edition (1930). I’m not sure if the changes are original, or what they were, however. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Commencement Address, William & Mary's College
Although there are several copies of this address around, I cannot see one which is an official one from Jon Stewart, which I understand means that it is still under copyright. -- Beardo (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I looked, the "official" one is probably the one posted by William and Mary on both their website and the actual address on their YouTube channel. and both are restrictive ("Standard YouTube License"), so I don't think it was released under a CC license . MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:59, 4 March 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. would you consider the most recent revision of his document (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)

Mohamed Muizz's Inaugural Address
This work was uploaded with no license tag. It is not an edict so PD-EdictGov does not apply. I don't see anything at commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Maldives that would suggest that this speech is automatically in the public domain in the Maldives either.

The work is copied from the website of the Maldivian President's office, whose copyright policy is rather unhelpful—it states that public domain content on the site is in the public domain, and copyrighted content on the site is copyrighted (and that content submitted by visitors to the site is CC-BY-4.0, but that wouldn't apply to this page).

—Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC) —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * From THE COPYRIGHT & RELATED RIGHTS ACT (2010) has the standard edict exception and nothing broader which doesn't really apply ... "(b) any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well as any official translation of such documents." MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also checked the youtube page, no indication of CC license there (although YouTube is much less helpful now in that regard). MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's essentially the same type of content that is covered by PD-EdictGov, which this is not. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 14:14, 7 March 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)

Alma Mater (Adrian C. Wilcox High School)

 * Alma Mater per evidence at Commons:File:Alma Mater (Adrian C. Wilcox High School).jpg of a 1961 dedication with no notice. SnowyCinema (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Fight On Wilcox (Adrian C. Wilcox High School)
Possibly copyrighted. On a positive note, if these indeed originated in the early 1960s (the first was cited as 1961), I'd wager copyright renewal would have been quite unlikely which would place these in the public domain. But the sources used are a 2024 school handbook and a modern YouTube video respectively, so they could represent later editions subject to separate copyright. SnowyCinema (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add that these are the contributions of a new user, The Sands of Time 0. SnowyCinema (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of copyright laws, but I'll try to find an original source. The high school's gym has a plaque with the lyrics to both songs, and for "Alma Mater" it has "Dedicated 1961" written at the bottom. Would this be good enough? Thank you for your help! The Sands of Time 0 (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This would appear to place the Alma Mater in the public domain. Would you mind uploading a picture of it to Wikimedia Commons, through the Upload Wizard, and then link the picture here? I would encourage releasing the picture with the license "CC0" since this will make the image in the public domain as well as the content of it. SnowyCinema (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the picture. Is it enough to place Alma Mater in the public domain? Thank you so much for your help! The Sands of Time 0 (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, Alma Mater should be good to go, then. But for "Fight on Wilcox", you'll need to find out when that song was first published. If it was published after 1988 it's guaranteed to be copyrighted, to put it simply. So here's to hoping that it was published somewhere before then. 🤞 SnowyCinema (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Amazing! Thank you so much! I'll look into when "Fight On Wilcox" was first published. Unfortunately, there isn't a reliable source of it online, so I'll need to get in contact with someone at the school who can help. I'll let you know if I have any more questions. Thank you again for your help! The Sands of Time 0 (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What you will need is some kind of document (such as an old school yearbook, catalog, or the like), or some other kind of physical evidence of publication. Someone's word wouldn't be enough to satisfy this discussion. SnowyCinema (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood! Thanks again. The Sands of Time 0 (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've found the original lyrics to Wilcox High School's fight song in a 1970 yearbook. Unfortunately, the formatting doesn't reflect how the words are sung. Could I reformat the lyrics (keeping the same words) or do I need to transcribe them exactly as written? Thank you so much for your help! The Sands of Time 0 (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Does the song contain a copyright notice around it? Or, does the entire yearbook? If not, you should be good to have it here, although preferably (eventually) this would be replaced by a transcription of the entire yearbook issue. And yes, we would need to transcribe it exactly as written. SnowyCinema (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying! Neither the song nor the yearbook have a copyright notice. The Sands of Time 0 (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Robert E. Howard letters to Weird Tales
There are three letters showing with no license:
 * Robert E. Howard to Weird Tales, Apr 1930
 * Robert E. Howard to Weird Tales, Jan 1931
 * Robert E. Howard to Weird Tales, Mar 1932

All three of those are in issues marked as having had copyright renewed here - https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/weirdtales - I assume that the copyright includes the letters pages. -- Beardo (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * per nomination -Pete (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Room to Roam
This appears to be a 1990 song by the Waterboys, a more modern phrasing closely based on the poem quoted, which appears in chapter 22: Phantastes/Chapter XXII I see no reason for the poem to appear independently on Wikisource, though I also see no reason this page couldn't be made into a redirect. -Pete (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * According to the wikipedia article on that album, that song is described as credited to "George MacDonald, arranged by the Waterboys". I don't know if the song had an independent existence before the Waterboys. -- Beardo (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If this page is to be made into a redirect, Roman numeral chapters (Chapter XXII) should be changed to Arabic (Chapter 22) since this move will eventually happen anyway. SnowyCinema (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Gazimestan speech
Modern non-US speech without any license, with no translator listed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Earliest source I found is, . https://web.archive.org/web/20020222073541/http://www.balkanpeace.org/cib/kam/kams/kams19.shtml from the same time period has "Compiled by the National Technical Information Service of the Department of Commerce of the U.S." MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:52, 13 March 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)

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 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:




 * 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 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 . TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

An End to the Armed Campaign
I cannot find any reason why this work would not be subject to automatic copyright, and I do not see any release of the statement under a free license. ⟲ Three Sixty! Talk? Contribs! 02:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It does seem to have been released to the press, intended for circulation. I don't know if that would affect the copyright status. -- Beardo (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Letter from Chiang Kai-shek to Adolf Hitler
No evidence of the translation being in the public domain. While it might have been translated soon after the original was written, there is no sign of its publication until recently: I have found it only at the NY public library digital collections and in a 2023 book. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Also - why would the original be in the public domain ? Does it count as an edict of government as far as the US is concerned ? -- Beardo (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well that depends when and where it was published. If in the PRC Article 5 of Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (1990) might prevent restoration, if ROC https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Annotated_Republic_of_China_Laws/Copyright_Act/1998 would cover official documents. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But do those affect the US copyright status ? -- Beardo (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It would fall under PD-1996 (for the original). MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Index:THEORY OF SHOCK WAVES AND INTRODUCTION TO GAS DYNAMICS.pdf
The auhthor of the Russian Original died in 1987. I'm not sure how this can be hosted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, the Russian original is copyrighted in both the US (as published less than 95 years ago) and in the source country (as the author died less than 70 years ago). I have nominated the file to be deleted also from Commons and will speedy it here as a clear copyvio in a short time too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So it seems the uploader thought that allowing unlimited distribution, as expressed on the first page of the document ("Distribution of this document is unlimited. It may be released to Clearinghouse, Department of Commerce, for sale to the general public."), is equivalent to releasing the work to public domain, see the discussion at Commons:User talk:Sunlitsky. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It was; it was a 1967 work without notice in the US, and the Soviet Union and US had no copyright relations until the Soviet Union joined the UCC in 1973, so PD-US until the URAA came in.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So we can undelete this in 1946+96 = 2042, and Commons will wait until 1987 + 71 = 2058. Should we localize a copy so we can undelete it here on our time scale?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Localizing the copy to enable its undeletion when its time comes is a good idea. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

As-Sahab Interview with al-Libi and Author:Abu Laith al-Libi
This is a post-2007 transcript of a translation of an "interview" (propaganda message) by As-Sahab (the propaganda arm of Al-Qaeda) with Abu Laith al-Libi (1967–2008). The text specifies no source, and makes an implausible and unsubstantiated claim that the author has released it into the public domain. Xover (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The Shipwrecked Sailor
This translation has no license, and states that it was modernized by Jerome S. Arkenberg, Cal. State Fullerton, with no reason to believe that Arkenberg released his edits under a compatible license. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * - the document is taken from here - https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/2200shipwreck.asp - which states "No permission is granted for commercial use." -- Beardo (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * per all above. -Pete (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Barack Obama's Letter to millions as he heads off to Grant Park
No license while done in 2008 presidential election.--Jusjih (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * He was still a Senator in 2008. Is there any indication that this was presented as being a product of that position? BD2412  T 01:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The letter is very short and simple, and clearly written in his capacity as a successful presidential candidate, not as a legislator. -Pete (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The copyright statement from barackobama.com: https://web.archive.org/web/20081106233052/http://www.barackobama.com/terms/
 * Your use of Information Contained on Website
 * The entire Website is copyrighted. Certain articles or materials within the Website also may be separately copyrighted by us or by others, as indicated.  If you find these materials useful, you may download, copy, display, print out, or send a copy to others so long as each copy indicates the appropriate copyright notice, credits us as your source, and is used only for your personal use.  You are expressly prohibited, however, from downloading, copying, displaying, printing out, or sending a copy to others for bulk or commercial uses, or for any defamatory or otherwise illegal purpose.  You acknowledge that the permission granted in this section does not constitute an endorsement by us of you or your use of the information and content.  Please contact us directly for special copyright permissions.
 * Noncommerical is prohibited on WS.MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , then. We have no choice. BD2412  T 03:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding my !vote, agree this seems like a clear-cut case. -Pete (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The Beast from the Abyss
Despite the fact that the author died in 1936, the work was first published in 1971 in The Howard Collector, #15 Autumn 1971. I couldn't find that exact issue, but the previous issue does have a copyright notice as was required at the time:. If I'm understanding the copyright guide correctly, this means this is under copyright until 2066. BrandenJames (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement
Custom software license, itself distributed under a custom text license:

"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document. You may use content from this license document as source material for your own license agreement, but you may not use the name 'Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement,' ('HESSLA') or any confusingly similar name, trademark or service-mark, in connection with any license agreement that is not either (1) a verbatim copy of this License Agreement, or (2) a license agreement that contains only additional terms expressly permitted by The HESSLA."

This custom license is not a free license in that it only permits reuse of the text "for your own license agreement" and for no other purposes. Xover (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Manifesto_of_the_league_for_social_reconstruction
This document's copyright would have been restored by the URAA, meaning that in the USA it is in copyright until 1932+95 years = 2027. (I think. Please correct me if I misunderstand.) -Pete (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Note the Canada was a +50 country until 2022 so 1932 does not necessarily mean it was copyrighted in Canada on the URAA date, although it is likely owned by Frank Underhill (d. 1971) / Francis Reginald Scott (d, 1985). That said, if it was first published in April 1932 of The Canadian Forum of Toronto, Canada it is possible it was published in the US within 30 days, The Canadian Forum was a political magazine, a bunch of volumes are in the LOC (https://lccn.loc.gov/26007376) etc. I will let those more in the know evaluate the simultaneous possibility. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Good points, but can we keep it on the basis that it might have been published in the U.S. within 30 days? Is anybody actively researching whether this actually happened? Seems to me like is the best option, without prejudice to restoring if somebody finds evidence of that. -Pete (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Life's Mystery
According to https://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/poetry/p353.aspx the first publication of this poem was in 1977 in A Winter Wish. This would mean if the book has a proper copyright notice that this poem would be under copyright until 2072. However, I am unable to confirm if it does have a notice or not. BrandenJames (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This seems to indicate there was a notice: https://pictures.abebooks.com/inventory/31631253583_3.jpg MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case it seems this should be deleted under the speedy deletion policy. BrandenJames (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This might be worth addressing as well: File:Life's Mystery (Lovecraft).wav -Pete (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Early Autumn (Langston Hughes)
See Talk:Early Autumn (Langston Hughes)—"Per https://www.thoughtco.com/how-to-understand-early-autumn-2990402 - "originally appeared in the Chicago Defender on September 30, 1950, and was later included in his 1963 collection, Something in Common and Other Stories. It has also been featured in a collection called The Short Stories of Langston Hughes"" Apparently the original Chicago Defender issue was renewed, although I don't know if this means that the stories within were renewed by extension... Pinging

(If we determine this is in the public domain, our transcription needs to be sent to WS:PD after this because it suffers from many other problems.) SnowyCinema (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't nominate it because my understanding is that copyright for pre-1964 works had to be at 27 years, but this was done at 32 years. I'm not sure whether the copyright renewal was valid/effective, hoping for insight from somebody better versed in US copyright law. -Pete (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You can ignore the links at the talk page. The Chicago Defender "renewal" links to a registration of 1978 copies of the Chicago Defender, not a renewal, and the "renewal" for The Short Stories of Langston Hughes was a link to a registration of a new edition with a fresh introduction. (If you're looking for renewals, those are the registration numbers that start with RE.)
 * I couldn't find a renewal. If this was published in the Chicago Defender with the title "Early Autumn" on September 30, 1950, I'm fairly sure it wasn't renewed. It's just that there's renewals for Langston Hughes in the Chicago Defender like "Issue 23Sep50. Simple says if he is not wanted where he wants to go, woe! Pub. 1950-09-18; B00000264568." and "Issue 7Oct50. Simple says if he was a landlord all tenants would have their own bells. Pub. 1950-10-02; B00000266500." (done as part of a renewal of several "Simple" pieces as RE0000004322) If it was originally printed as part of one of those, it could be easily renewed.
 * Something in Common and Other Stories was renewed; RE0000555363. It says "New Matter: compilation of 5 works", so it wouldn't have had any effect on the copyright status of the original story, though I'd feel a lot more comfortable to working from the Chicago Defender version than any later version.
 * If "originally appeared in the Chicago Defender on September 30, 1950" is correct, I believe this is in the public domain. --Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * SnowyCinema, Pete, Prosfilaes: Here’s the file: File:Early Autumn (Hughes).pdf. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've moved the page here and attached the scan, updated header, banners, etc. I began proofing and will finish later today, it's a slightly different version of the story. -Pete (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the rather extensive small differences, I'd guess the previously-transcribed was indeed a later edited version of the story, and likely under its own copyright. Might be worth a revdelete upon close. -Pete (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

2008 Republican Debate - 30 January
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)
 * 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)

When Wendy Grew Up
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)
 * per Teaeaea. Relevant links:  -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)

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


 * 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)
 * 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)

Scotch rhapsody
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)

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

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

Monthly Weather Review
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: 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)

Pellucidar
This has recently been completed and tagged with, which doesn't work. It was first published in 1914, but this edition is from 1962, so I'm not sure it's PD. — Alien333 (what I did &amp; why I did it wrong) 06:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Since it was from 1962, PD-US-no-notice would apply to any editing and the cover art (although the images are currently tagged PD-US-no-renewal, which would also apply). Reprint license is a possibility to use as well (especially if we do tag no-notice which is confusing because it does have the 1915 notice.). MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * If a (pre-1978) US reprint of a US work has just the original copyright notice that's now PD-old, the whole thing is governed by that copyright notice (or has no notice) and is PD-US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * PD-old means that the author died more than 100 years ago, which simply is not true. The author died in 1950. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * PD-US then.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's the current tag, but it's generating an error, because of the issues posted above and below. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I changed it to, that seems to correspond more to this case. — Alien333 (what I did &amp; why I did it wrong) 19:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1914/1915 is the year it was serialized in a magazine, and it the year for copyright of the text. No new copyright claim was included in the Ace Books edition.  I have an open conversation with  about the problem of needing to include both year of publication and year of copyright.  This may need to be a wider conversation, but it will almost certainly require the rewriting of code. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That was the idea behind reprint license to allow it to be tagged with both dates with the relevant conditions (e. g. dates of the cover artist). I understand the headers might need updating to pull from wikidata though. MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)..

Template:PD-American Samoa
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)

National Weather Service - Partial not free-to-use (Question on how to deal with this)
So the National Weather Service is a branch of the U.S. government. For majority of their publications, 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 {&#8203;{image removed}&#8203;} in the transcription. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

British War Aims
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)

Copyright Implications of Trump v. United States
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."  MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Was the album material for Ere's 'Olloway renewed?
I know the recordings on Ere's 'Olloway (1958, ) 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)

Morse Code for Radio Amateurs
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)