Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2009-12

=Kept=

World Community Day
{{closed|1=Speedy keep billinghurst (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC) |text=

Women's responsibility in today's world
These two works have been added with PD-self. As the author is deceased, it would seem to be a claim of a copyright holder. I have asked the editor to supply a permission to mailto:info@wikisource.org -- billinghurst (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The editor has responded on Billinghurst's talk page and the "possible copyright violation notice" changed to "OTRS pending". ResScholar (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * reports OTRS received and releases copyright. Applied to pages. billinghurst (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

}}

=Deleted=

Sir Gerald Kaufman's speech
Sir Gerald Kaufman's 15.01.2009 speech on Gaza Strike at House of Commons

The Memoirs Of Babur
}

Barack Obama's Super Bowl Pre-Game Interview
{{closed|1='''Deleted, per the latter half of the request. The point of hosting a "half-page" is questionable, and it's not as though the interview is of critical significance. I agree particularly with Billingurst's final comment.''' &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  {{sup| Talk }} 13:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)|text= While I can understand that the words of the president would be in the public domain, I would have thought that the words of the journalist would still be covered by copyright. That being the case, having just having one side of the conversation may be possible, it doesn't make it much of a work. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have heard people suggest you can simply "summarise" the question, ie "[question about current economic downturn]", "[question about recent al-Qaeda tape]", etc. Sherurcij {{sup|Collaboration of the Week: Author:Carl Linnaeus.}} 13:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A summarisation of the question would seem appropriate. Jude (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW... An official government source hosting a transcript of the interview has been linked on the talk page if it matters. George Orwell III (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a fine line here. Obama is still capable of producing works that fall under copyright protection, if he does so on his own time - but is any of his time really his own now? The posting of the transcript on a government website has no effect on its copyright status. The U.S. government could post Harry Potter on one of its websites if it cared to, but this would not eliminate the copyright protection afforded to that work (even if the author agreed to have it so posted). Work that falls outside of copyright as a product of the federal government falls outside of copyright because it is a product of the federal government. BD2412 T 21:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While I fully understand that Obama (the individual) may enjoy protections that Obama (the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government) cannot, I believe the question here in favor of removal concerned the "words" of the individual who asked President Obama the questions in the interview, & Not Obama's Replies. Again, fully understanding GPO publication hardly equates to protection either, isn't this a matter of the medium used or one of location. I may be more likely to accept the idea that the actual audio or video of the interview by a representative of NBC News (Matt Lauer) may have some justification for an edit regarding only the questions asked by Lauer of the President -- but NOT so much when it appears in the transcription of the interview (which was a product of the White House Press Office and not NBC). Also, does it not matter where the interview was held and with understanding in place? I'm under the impression that NBC may have a basis to claim protection had the President come to one of their programs or studios to conduct an interview but in this instance, NBC came to the White House and was granted time with the President in the Map Room of the White House, which is hardly part of the First Family's private residence within the WH btw. Finally, the title may betray the actual content of the interview - which covered not only "Presdential Picks" for the Super Bowl but many many other topics that concerned various matters of policy and governance. The sport aspect is very minor compared to the rest of the content IMO. George Orwell III (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A large amount of the content of the interview appears to be politically or "Presidential" related. I agree with BD2412, though. The Government can post, link to, and do whatever it likes with copyright material on its websites, and that does not automatically make things public domain. Jude (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not believe anbody has tried to claim government publication automatically meant the content is public domain. The reason(s) for listing the page here concerned the interview questions put to the President and not so much the President's responses. The rationalization then, given that point on assumed partial protection for the interviewer, was that content made up of nothing but replies begged the question of being worth keeping or not.... well at least that is how I interpreted this. George Orwell III (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the whole thing, I'd have to say that Matt Lauer is the author of the questions, and owns the copyright in those (or the network that employs him does). Although some of the interactions involve very short follow-ups, it is pretty clear that Lauer sketched out his interview beforehand and stuck to that script. BD2412 T 23:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold on - are we talking about NBC News' transcription of what aired on their broadcast attributed to the Today Show (Hosted by Matt Lauer) or the White House Press Office's transcription of the interview INCLUDING portions of which were not broadcasted nor transcribbed but the questioning therein is still attributed to having come from Matt Lauer. Does this matter? The 2 transcriptions are NOT the same {do a word search for the term "peanut butter" for example), begging the question of what relevance scripted question plays either way too. Does NBC lay claim portions of a work not aired by them nor transcribbed by them?


 * In addition to the above, what role does this WhiteHouse.gov {the EOP &rarr; White House Staff &rarr; Press Office) disclaimer play in all this:

{{quote|Copyright Notice Pursuant to federal law, government-produced materials appearing on this site are not copyright protected. The United States Government may receive and hold copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to Whitehouse.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.}}
 * While this goes to the website, the transcript which eventually was sent to GPO as part of the Daily Compilation of Presidential Documents, appeared on the White House website back in February first and was compiled then posted by the WH Press Office. George Orwell III (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If I write a short story and stick in a drawer (or record a video of my reading it and stick it on a memory chip), and I never, ever show it to any other person, I still own the copyright to that work. All that it takes is reduction to a tangible medium (i.e. recording). An erroneous transcription of such a work is a derivative work, still owned by the original copyright owner despite errors in transcription. Also, as I said before, the government posting copyrighted material on their website does not divest the author of copyright ownership, no matter the license accompanying the work. BD2412 T 01:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I think it's been made painfully clear already that NBC news retains it's rights to it's contributions to the work. Does the issue then become one of the waiving of NBC's rights under that Commons License or not, a.) allowing this work to pass WS copyright standards as long as b.) edits are made to comply with what's outlined by that license (Attribution) OR is it now really a matter of c.) summarizing/paraphrasing the questions, striping any attributions/mentions of the questions relating to NBC's portion and posting the GPO/WH Press Office version OR finally d.) none of the above because no matter waiver, edit, commons license, etc. the work cannot comply with WS copyright policy? Thank you once again for your input. George Orwell III (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The nature of the questions cannot be copyright, it is only the words where there is artistic merit. Summarising the nature of the questions should circumvent NBC's copyright, unless you want to start applying to NBC to get creative commons attribution/permissions. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Still having a hard time time framing this. If “any creative work fixed in a tangible medium by any person is protected by a copyright in favor of the author of that work” is the psuedo-litmus test here as well, arren't there 3 seperate distinctions of “works” in play here.
 * Medium = The audio-video of the actual interview (fixed), where Matt Lauer &rarr; NBC News have the claim of copyright to their work (audio & video) and the President &rarr; Federal Government have no claim their's as per law for works of the Federal Government nor have they attempted to reverse this default by seeking a claim as normally the case for these typ of Government works.
 * Medium = Electronic/Printed Text (fixed). Afterwards, NBC News transcribes the aired portions of the interview and makes that available with protections in place as the author of that work. Matt Lauer is irrelevant as an employee of NBC News anyway but also because he is no longer authoring anything for this work.
 * Medium = Electronic/Printed Text (fixed). Afterwards, the White House Press Office transcribes what it believes is the entire interview, aired or not, posts it on White House and eventually makes it way to the Government Printing Office as part of the Daily/Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents. Obama is still not a claimant because he is an officer of the Federal Government anyway but also because he is not the author of this work as well, the White House Press Office is, and the President could not make a claim because but for that reason too.
 * So aren't we looking at three individual works: 2 of which are partially (Matt Lauer's audio/video) or fully (transcript of aired portion) NBC News' “property” and the third (transcript of entire interview) being “property” of the White House Press Office? I guess my hang up is akin to something like a newspaper article quoting somebody but having the person they are quoting somehow still having claim to copyright of the quoted text within the work that was solely created by the author of the article. Appologies if I'm not making myself clear here. George Orwell III (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The White House transcript would have been made after the interview, i.e. after the work was fixed in a tangible medium by NBC. Therefore, it would be a derivative work, with NBC still having ownership of the copyright. NBC can't 'own' Obama's words, since he is speaking in his capacity as President, and those expressions go right into the public domain. However, NBC owns everything else coming out of that interview. BD2412 T 18:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Okie Dokey - I can see a basis in a justification for removing it (as hypocritical and convoluted as it may be in the grand scheme of things) now and simply suggest deleting the article but allowing a listing for it to remain on Obama's page - linking to the external GPO hosted version rather than the current page in question.... unless somebody thinks it's worth summarizing the questions and keeping the rest content instead?
 * I do, however, believe if this is the standardard for these kind of works for major heads of state (past, present or future), it is a policy that is flawed if not flat out petty and needs a better solution at some point down the road. George Orwell III (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And there is the difference between just and legal. Also, try to remember what is the purpose of Wikisource.  It is not to record verbatim every conversation, nor every speech, nor to record every item about US law and US presidents, it is to reproduce published works in the public domain.  So when NBC loses its copyright on the work, we can reproduce, so our task is to work hard at being here for that time. :-) billinghurst (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

}}

... Experiments with Truth
An Autobiography or The Story of my Experiments with Truth

Letter in The Times...
Letter in The Times of 2 February 1955 concerning legal status of Formosa

2009 Nobel Peace Prize citation
Hello, This text is certainly not in the domain public. Yann (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I went through a discussion with the editor a few days ago (after I deleted it for similar thinking). There is discussion on my talk page, with Cyg, and there are links to ability to use and reproduce on the work's talk page. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comfortable to roll over on this especially in terms of subsidiary use from our site not protecting or providing further protection.-- billinghurst (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: If any permission to reproduce per http://nobelprize.org/nobelweb/terms_use.html is found but incompatible with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL, transwiki to Canadian Wikilivres. The permission does not seem incompatible.--Jusjih (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: The permission says:
 * Press releases


 * Except where noted otherwise, press releases that appear on this Site may be downloaded, reproduced and published (and in the case of text-based materials, translated) by members of the press.


 * You are not allowed to use the Nobel Foundation trademarks when publishing or using press releases.


 * which only gives permission to members of the press and doesn't give permission to make derivative works besides translations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per http://nobelprize.org/nobelweb/terms_use.html I don't see how this could possibly be reconciled with http://freedomdefined.org/Definition, which has been endorsed and adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation. Hesperian 04:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "You may not reproduce, distribute, display, transmit, modify, perform, adapt, generate derivative works or otherwise use the Content without prior written permission – if not expressly stated elsewhere in these Terms and Conditions of Use."
 * "Except where noted otherwise, press releases that appear on this Site may be downloaded, reproduced and published (and in the case of text-based materials, translated) by members of the press. "
 * "Commercial Use of the Nobel Foundation trademarks and other Site Content is expressly prohibited."
 * "All rights not expressly granted by Nobel Web herein are specifically and completely reserved. Nothing on the Site or in these Terms and Conditions of Use grants, expressly or implicitly, any right or license to use any Content or property of any third party."

I believe that you also need to read this http://nobelprize.org/contact/copyright/index.html Permission in writing is not required for: ... Use of the press releases from the Nobel Foundation and the Nobel Prize-Awarding Institutions, with the exception of logotypes and Nobel Prize design marks ("the Nobel Prize medals") ... within the same context. I believe that this discussion has been closed and deleted preemptively in light of the prior discussion. I am not saying that it was incorrect deletion, I don't think that it meets a speedy determination.-- billinghurst (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that this may be able to be resolved with OTRS. It doesn't sound as if they are trying to hold tight to their press releases. billinghurst (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Properly re-opened, though leaving the actual article deleted, so we can discuss. Personally, I still think delete:. Permission to use something copyrighted on Wikisource does not necessarily mean that it is compatible with our licensing system. I don't think this makes it free or fit our requirements. Jude (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Due.billinghurst (talk)


 * Keep I think we fit quite well within the press release permissions. Specified exemptions generally override broader legal provisions. As to what is meant by the press, that word should be given a broad interpretation. In this age of blogging and citizen journalism we are all the press; a narrow interpretation would bar anyone but those with physical printing presses from using the press release. We are not interested in reproducing the trademarks, so that part is moot.A rigid and narrow attitude about the copyrights of press releases defeats the purpose of such documents, and invites misinterpretation of the intent of those who released them. Has there ever been a legal case anywhere for the republication of a press release? Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We are a collection of Free Content, not just anything we can post. If everyone and anyone, even those clearly non-press, cannot fold, spindle and mutilate it, then it shouldn't be here. There's many archives of press releases, especially for something like this; let them who don't worry about Free Content keep a copy online.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's right. By putting it here, we aren't just saying we're allowed to use it; we are saying everyone is allowed to use it. Hesperian 23:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree. Our own page on copyright defines free content as "Free content is content which can be freely viewed, used, distributed, modified, and exploited by anyone, in any form, and for any purpose (including commercial exploitation) without exception and without limitation". I see nothing that suggests that the definition is met by this work. Even if Wikisource fits into a specific permission, such as "non-commercial use", or "educational use only", allowing texts which do not conform absolutely to this spirit of freeness can only be detrimental to Wikisource, and Wikimedia as a whole. Jude (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, the licensing restrictions seem clearly outside the scope of “Free Content” as defined at WS:COPY. Tarmstro99 (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC) }}

2009 Alaskan Governor Resignation Speech
{{closed|1=Deleted billinghurst (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)|text= I see no evidence that this speech meets the stipulations of {{tl|PD-manifesto}}: there is no evidence that this speech is intended to be released into the public domain by its author, nor is there any clear evidence that a reasonable effort has been made to verify that a work is unlicensed.. Indeed, consider a recent discussion where US State Governor responses to State of the Union addresses were deleted, here:


 * For one thing, I don't agree that just because a member of Congress makes a speech, even a political one, that he or she is necessarily acting in the course of his official duties. Furthermore, it's simple fact that the law only excludes copyright on work "of the United States Government", not works of the states. States can and often do assert copyright, so even if state governors are government officials speaking as government officials, their speeches still aren't in the public domain--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, I think it should be deleted. Jude (talk) 07:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. We have had the discussion before; a speech is not free of copyright, there is no evident exemption by law due to the person. billinghurst (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This speech is not an edict of government.--Jusjih (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, does it fit Wikilivres:Template:Manifesto with Canadian copyright permission by law? If yes, I suggest importing to Canadian Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I dispute the notion the speech does not qualify as an edict of government. The introductory line clearly states she is making the address as an officer (the Governor) of the State of Alaska and continues to refer to the actions she had made as acts of the State Executive or as acts undertaken as allowed by law in the role as Governor of Alaska through out the bulk of the address. Although it's peppered with non-governmental related tangents at times, the overall content still collectively outlines a policy position and a mini state-of-the-state review of sorts while serving as the vehicle to what amounted to an informal renunciation of the oath taken when she first officially took office in the process. She also points out the order of succession that will take take place after her departure by the time she gets around to the conclusion. The content of the speech is/was also made available for public inspection via the State of Alaska website-- not that doing so is a clear indication that the speech falls under being excluded from protection under copyright law but it does go to document archival and leans toward being classified as an official text. George Orwell III (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how a resignation notice, is an EDICT of government, unless the legislation otherwise defines edict differently than common terms. An official letter of resignation signed by the person would more likely be classified as such an edict. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments. (Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices section 206.01Online
 * I believe this can qualify as an " Edict of Government " if the document (the transcript) can be classified as an official text, not as a work of the US Federal Government, but as a work of the Alaskan State Government. Many states tend to mirror the Federal practice although some states, such as Florida, reqire an act of it's legislature to set the copyright status of that state's governmental works - BUT that is clearly noted/refrenced on such works. While the omission of such "a right to retain" copyright protection does not indicate the same does not also apply in Alaska's case, the lack of that type of notice not only on the address in question but the entire executive online catalog of various works, from what I can tell, does tend to lean the other way and indicate they mirror the Federal statue IMHO. Again, the optimal input here would be somebody familar with Alaska and it's legal framework (which I am not). George Orwell III (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? I can do nothing but disagree. I would consider an edict as something more powerful than an announcement of a glorified press statement. I would expect that it would be a formal tool.  In a Commonwealth jurisdiction that would be a ruling, or something signed as part of formal government process, eg. Governor-in-Council.  Surely there was a formal letter of resignation that would be required under legislation or constitution, that started a process that appoints a successor.  That letter would be the edict IMNSHO. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well was this a matter of public policy as it related to the role of the Chief Executive of the Executive branch of the Alaskan state government and the peaceful & orderly transfer of power from one administration to the next without an election having taken place but rather a resignation causing the change instead or not? If so, then absent any Constitutional or legislative infringement otherwise, the publication can easily be considered matter of public policy by the Governor (the Chief Executive as before) and qualifies the transcript as official "State" text. If you'd rather not take the omission of any disclaimer, terms of use or standard indication of copyright status on the Office of the Governor's (the Executive Office) webpages as an indication of where exactly this and similar Executive works [ I suspect] fall under, then I don't know how else illustrate the nuances involved when it comes matters of the Executive, the Executive Offices or any agency considered part of an Administration that normally reports to the Executive at any level of Federal, State or local government in the U.S. George Orwell III (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a creative work. This is not a declaration that "Governor Palin is resigning". If it were just a few lines of formal text explaining that Governor Palin was resigning, and perhaps outlining a few circumstances, I might agree, but it is very clearly not. Jude (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is one person's subjective opinion. The address was made by the still Governor of the State of Alaska and intended for the public at large as a matter Alaskan state administration or policy. The quality of content or method invoked to convey whatever pertinent information the chief executive deemed necessary or appropriate at the time, be it motivated by sincere public interest & welfare or not, has little to do with if the transcript of the address meets WS standards for allowable works. George Orwell III (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * None of which makes it Government Edict  and hence not demonstrated to be definitively clear of copyright as per US law. Your eludication of the perceived intention of a US state governor's website and the lack of over restrictions does not make the transcript public domain, and thus able to be hosted at WS without restriction.-- billinghurst (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

&larr; I did not mean to infer any of this was absolutely definitive -- not being an Alaskan lawyer and all. I merely tried to point out that this, as well as several other similar Executive "works" aren't going fulfill the hard definition of a Government Edict but still can be considered official texts that relate or are relevent as matters of Public interest or welfare (Policy) and allowable for (re)use in the public domain as such. The original premise was that this was not intended by the author for use in the public domain and that no effort was made to determine if the work is licensed or not. Well I take issue with the definition of who exactly the "author" is when it happens involve any individual holding nearly all of the noteworthy Executive-type positions in American government and also tried to point out that at least the online Executive hosted content lacks the same copyright, terms of use, etc, that the other 2 branches of government seem to apply diligently. Of course this means nothing definative either way. George Orwell III (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * 1. This is a speech made by a person who was Governor of a State at the time.
 * 2. In the speech the person speaks as "Governor" to the people of state as citizens.
 * 3. The speech is a Resignation speech
 * 4. A copy of the speech was made a available to  public via the State of Alaska website
 * 5. The press was invited to come.
 * 6. The speech made in front of news TV cameras
 * 7. The broadcast by the press.
 * 8. There no copyright notice that I can see on 2009 Alaskan Governor Resignation Speech
 * 9. Copies of speech are on the web.
 * As I see it this is a {{tl|PD-manifesto}} This not One-0n-One with Larry King Live, Speech at a Fundraiser, part of new Book, poetry at a coffeehouse,or a lectures in classroom. When someone invites the press(most if not all) to a speech about politics and makes a free copy of the speech was made a available to public without copyright notice it is public. When any party gives Response to an Union by Address the President they invited all the press to show it.--Lookatthis (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see where you address the legal aspects of copyright, and how they apply in this situation. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First I am not an Lawyer and I do not claimed to be however I think myself reasonable personare we going ask ever person in politics who makes a speech about politics before press "I agree to irrevocably release my speech in the public domain" what is Saturday Night Live to do if politicians public speech are not in public domain...I know we are not Saturday Night Live...if are going to use {{tl|PD-manifesto}} this goes in if not lets use only {{tl|PD-1923}}, {{tl|PD-old-80}},{{tl|PD-old}} --Lookatthis (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully Prosfilaes can clear this up (State claiming copyright where the Federal Government would release into the public domain; points 1, 2 and 3), but a few replies to your points. Point 4, websites can and frequently do post copyright texts. Since when does this public posting release them from copyright? I don't know of any instance where it does. For points 5, 6, and 7: fair use would cover this. We do not accept fair use texts on Wikisource. Point 8, copyrighted is assumed. Point 9: this has not been and never will be a reason to accept texts on Wikisource. "Because it's available elsewhere" we could accept Harry Potter and whatever else pirates post online with this reasoning. As Billinghurst points out, you haven't addressed any of the legal concerns, which are:
 * Are speeches by State representatives copyright by their respective state, or at least, are they not automatically released into the public domain as would be the case if it were federal?
 * Regardless of this, could this text be considered an edict of government and therefore, under US law, not be considered eligible for copyright? I'm disinclined to go with this assessment, though, as (Wiktionary puts it), an edict is a declaration of law or an authoritative commands. This is an announcement, which is neither. Jude (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - For the reasons George Orwell III mentions and also because in going through a few pages of the highest-rated Google hits for various phrases from the text, I note that it has been reproduced in quite a few places (including a number of mainstream media web sites and Alaskan government web sites) without any licensing notice. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Other people reproducing a copyrighted text (in fair use, likely, or illegally) doesn't necessarily mean that it is licensed in such a way that allows it to be hosted on Wikisource, and we do not accept fair use texts. They are also not required to indicate any licensing notice, as it is assumed to be copyrighted. Jude (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. I am an intellectual property attorney. This text is subject to copyright protection. I have made a thorough search of Alaska statutes, and found none that ameliorate the automatic federal grant of copyright protection to any kind of work produced by the Alaska government, or any official thereof. To the contrary, many Alaska government agencies specify the copyright protection of their documents - see, e.g. Alaska Fish and Game Copyright Notice (stating: "Copyright protection begins automatically from the moment the work is created in fixed form and begins without any formality, process, or application. In keeping with changes in copyright law in 1987, the standard copyright notice (e.g., © 1999 Alaska Department of Fish and Game) is not required to establish copyright"). Cheers! BD2412 T 21:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The law says "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy." This doesn't fall under any of those categories; there's no precedential value, there's no penalty for violating it, etc. It's public, yes; but I see no reason to think that that means we have unlimited rights to fold, spindle and mutilate. Are you sure they wouldn't send a copyright takedown notice against a bad Spanish translation; a willfully mangled Spanish translation; a translation into Redneck; or a video with whatever offensive backdrop you can imagine?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment &minus; Just to be clear, there is no Federal Law that uses or defines the term Edict of Government as far as I know. The term and any application of that definition comes from the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices section 206.01 Hosted Online. It is intended to be used primarily by the Copyright Office staff, as a general guide to the Copyright Office policies and procedures. Wikipedia does not cite any instances where this internal manual or the definitions found within it has been given any legal standing in court or specifically used as anything other than the guide it was intended to be for Copyright Office staffers. I only gave it credibility as being the generally accepted definition because it has been used as justification in of one of the PD banners over on Wiki. George Orwell III (talk)
 * At the very least, what that Compendium means is that if they send the speech in for registration, the copyright office will send them back a document that's prima faciae evidence in any US court that they own a valid copyright on the speech. Furthermore, the definitions we're finding elsewhere is backing it up; the 1913 Unabridged Webster's says an edict is "A public command or ordinance by the sovereign power; the proclamation of a law made by an absolute authority, as if by the very act of announcement; a decree".--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If there is an administrator who is Lawyer who  has gone to Law school and is a member of Bar good standing who believes this in Public Domain then the administrator/Lawyer should Keep it  if the administrator/Lawyer think it is NOT in the Public Domain Delete it-- tell us why as Lawyer any way ---There is no need to have debate between non-Lawyer (like myself) about what the law is.--Lookatthis (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'm not sure if you're implying that the people who have commented on this so far aren't lawyers, and therefore shouldn't be making judgments about copyright, or something else entirely, but either way: we have plenty of contributors who are not experts in copyright (myself included), but have quite a bit of experience with different topics of copyright and can make judgments in line with our policies (as, indeed, Wikimedia Foundation council Mike Godwin seemed to support in his office hours chat a few weeks back), but we also have some experts (or, though not intending to imply any illegitimacy, people who claim to be) such as BD2412, who have clearly stated that they don't believe this text could be considered public domain, and have then explained their reasons why. Could you clarify exactly what your issue is? Jude (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is under copyright it under copyright no matter how many people say it Public Domain. I think that works like this Should be Public Domain, However "Should be" and "what the law is" is not the same think. I just saying let a lawyer make the call short write essay why.--Lookatthis (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I will be glad to provide evidence of my credentials as an attorney and my bar admissions to an admin or 'crat here on the condition that my anonymity be otherwise secured. I think it would be useful to do so now in order to dispel any future 'if he really is a lawyer concern. BD2412 T 16:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - As if it matters, since the enactment of the cited statue which that and other departments bases it's authority under to claim copyright, Alaska State Executive Order 208 transfered the control of all online government publications to the IT department of the Office of the Governor. Again I'm no lawyer but one authorizing statue is based under the Alaska State Procurement Code, as referenced in the Fish and Game Code chapter of the state statutes specifically and the other is for the ability to retain software rights as far as I can tell. Anyway... I don't know how accurate this collection is, but it may be useful to the discussion. George Orwell III (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By default, Alaska has a copyright on the speech. They have to specifically reject it for the speech to be in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is this They, What did they say, When did say it,Where did say it , and Why?--Lookatthis (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Given the incoherence of that question, my only idea is to point you to Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and hope you can figure out the answer.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So which is it? The idea that the controlling entity for all materials made available online for the Official Alaska State website (happens to be the Executive} makes executive-generated content (the transciption of a prior Governor's address) available online but with no clear assertion to retain that automatically granted-upon-creation right to protection as some of the departments have choosen to practice that also, by chance, again, answers to the same executive arm of the Alaskan state government or as the other two branches of state government choose to practice in thier assertion for their content disqualify the article or is it that Copyright Office's guidebook definition of what constitutes an official text as a being a true Edict of Government that disqualifies the transcription from being hosted? George Orwell III (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What? The fact that it's not a government edict means the government of Alaska has a copyright interest. They don't have to clearly assert their rights; they just exist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for any confusion. I'm not disputing that the State's interest may exist or once existed, I'm disputing that the guidelines in an inter-agency manual constitutes the absolute definition of edicts, official texts or matters of public policy, interest or welfare as outlined within it are... or that those definitions have any real legal standing in light of no given precedent or test in a court of law. Congress may have willed the creation of such a guide in 1976 to accomodate the re-write of 1909 copyright law but 30 years later that means very little -- other than for those who use it as a guide at work. George Orwell III (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's very simple, really. Under U.S. law (as conformed to international treaties), any creative work fixed in a tangible medium by any person is protected by a copyright in favor of the author of that work. There are exceptions, one of which is that the U.S. government disclaims copyright protection of works produced by the U.S. government. This does not apply against the states. Some states have taken it upon themselves to enact legislation which effects a similar disclaimer of copyright in government works. Alaska is not one of these. Another exception to the automatic extension of copyright protection is for certain public acts, for example ordinances and court decisions. The reason for this exception is that people have the right to know the law that governs their conduct, and to convey that information to others. A state can not pass a statute and then prohibit citizens from exchanging copies of the statute, because everyone has a right to be informed of what the law may require of them. A state court can not issue an opinion and prohibit copying of that opinion because that opinion may bind future courts facing the same issues, and therefore has an effect on people's rights similar to a statute. The same goes for a rule promulgated by an executive department. The common thread is that people have a right to copy and exchange documents which govern how the state requires them to behave. A resignation speech is nothing like these things. BD2412 T 16:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for expanding on your reasoning on this. I'm curious about a side issue & as a tangent - would Sarah Palin the common everyday legal resident of Alaska have any claim to content, materials etc. she authored or had control over, such as the transcipt of this address, as Sarah Palin the one time Chief Executive of the State of Alaska or does the State retain primary right to the works, specifically the current and any future Executives? George Orwell III (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is actually the very typical issue of employer/employee copyright precedence. If you work for a marketing firm, for example, and your boss tells you to draft a campaign for a client, you should be under no illusion that you own the copyright in that work. If you write a letter of resignation, you probably do own it, unless this was something that your employer directed you to write and mapped out the content. Palin was under no legal duty to give a speech regarding her resignation, but she did so in her capacity as governor, and under the title of governor. It would be useful to know if any state funds were used to support the event itself. That would clinch it for me as being a product of her employment, making the speech property of the state. BD2412 T 18:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe this was a plain copy first made available as prepared remarks prior to the event (which was still further before the effective date of resignation) took place. I'm not all that curious to see if text matches up with what actually transpired, personally. I would think the actual video/audio or maybe just the content in the form of a PDF with State letterhead and any other pomp and circumstance that typically goes with it would be enough to clinch it. State funding may not be so straight forward because, ironically, one of the previous issues that hounded the former Governor revolved around disputes over the legitimacy of State reimbursements, travel allowances and similar payments made to her when they seemed not to be related to her duties -- 'nuff said. George Orwell III (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Lets see If I got this Right:
 * 1."Under U.S. law (as conformed to international treaties)"Anyone Sarah Palin, Brian Schweitzer, Steven Spielberg, myself,Et cetera can make a "creative work fixed in a tangible medium" let us say a movie then the "Author" can give away the movie for free, show it to only friends and no-one else, only let it be shown if it is shown uncut, Show it in Movie theater world-wide one time only(one day, one shown, same time U.T).
 * 2. Works of the United States federal government are in the public domain (17 U.S.C. 105).
 * 3. States Can themselves to enact legislation to disclaimer of copyright in government works.
 * 4. Alaska has not
 * I hope I got this right--Lookatthis (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * <- (Un-indent)
 * (I am not a lawyer! :-)) Regarding point 1, I believe you are absolutely correct. Copyright exists for basically this reason: if I write a novel, I can get it published, give copies to my friends, they can exchange it; book stores can sell it, newspapers can review it, but I still retain control over the text. Unless I have explicitly released this copyright (or indeed, signed a contract which hands copyright over to my publisher, or whatever), this will remain the case until my copyright expires.
 * There seem to be a large amount of speeches hosted on Wikisource on the proviso that delivering the speech in public somehow releases all copyright on it automatically. As is currently being discussed on the Scriptorium, this could be the case in Canada (where Wikilivres is hosted), and it would therefore make a lot of sense to move speeches there instead of hosting them here; either way, in my non-lawyerly opinion, I believe that continuing to host these speeches could prove to be a problem for Wikisource and the foundation at a later date. It would also prove problematic for re-users of our content.
 * Regarding your last three points, I also believe this is correct. Regardless of whether or not Sarah Palin holds copyright over the speech, if she does not, then it could be assumed that copyright lies with the Alaskan State Government. Even in this case, as you point out, Alaska does not disclaim copyright automatically on works produced by them. So, in summation, it's copyrighted in either interpretation. Jude (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - How sure are we that she is the author, anyway? (Actually, this question could apply to any speech uploaded here that was delivered by a government official and cites that same person as the author.) --LarryGilbert (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it matter? If she's not, then the 'real author' owns the copyright, unless it was a work for hire (which it probably was). Either way, we can't host it. BD2412 T 13:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, I agree with you. My concern was with the person who really did the writing being credited as the author. I take it that Wikisource's policy is the same as that of the world at large (that the authorship of a work-for-hire belongs to the one who is doing the hiring). --LarryGilbert (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

billinghurst (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC) }}
 * Delete. Best evidence supports that no exclusion from copyright, so not in public domain.

Index:Mystic_Treatises
=Other=