Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2017

Index:Knight (1975) Past, Future and the Problem of Communication in the Work of V V Klhebnikov.djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:Fear by W. Somerset Maugham.djvu
Clearly PD-US, by date, however this is claimed to be PD-old-70 at Commons, which given that the (British?) author died in 1965, can't possibly be correct.

At best (and considering whether it counts as a periodical contribution or not.), it's PD-US and so should ideally be locally hosted, until 2035. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * For starters, it's an extract from a periodical, which should not be uploaded here separately to the rest of the issue. We already host some issues of Century Magazine. Yes, it's PD-US. Yes, it can be hosted here instead of Commons. Just make sure it's the whole issue of the periodical. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. What was the policy on "extracts" again? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn- License was updated at Commons.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:War poems.djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

National Anthem of the Soviet Union

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Translation:On Fortune

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Stand in the Schoolhouse Door Speech

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

PD-EdictGov New Start

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Index:Pellucidar.djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Early in the morning I gazed at the eastern skies ...

 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Index:Airplane photography.djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Index:Bradshaw's Shareholders' Guide for 1905.djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Mozilla Public Licenses

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

British Indian Ocean Territory Constitution Order 2004

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Index:Miscellanea, Volume IX.djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

A Mick in Israel and Dreaming

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Index:Niger Delta Ecosystems- the ERA Handbook, 1998.pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Last Speeches to Judge Webster Thayer and Bartolomeo Vanzetti's Speech to the Court

 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  15:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I Am - Somebody

 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  15:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Works published by Peepang

 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  15:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Key To Health

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

January 17th 2005 NK Youth Freedom League Statement

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

God Bless Our Homeland Ghana

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The Galtee Mountain Boy

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines for Opus Dei within the Diocese of Westminster

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The Education We Want

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Index:BRA Review Autumn 1977.pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Index:Dostoevsky - letters and reminiscences.pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Naya Kashmir

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Prayer for the Welfare of the State of Israel

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Angelie Quest

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Zdravljica

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Works of Author:Muhammad Yunus

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The Final March for Reform

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence as public domain or should we delete it here ?

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Liao-Fan's Four Lessons

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ar Hyd y Nos (Sugars)

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Index:Lamb - Hydrodynamics, 6th edition, 1945.djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:U.S.A. Presidential Debates and Category:U.S.A. Vice-Presidential Debates

 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Watson, Declaration of Dr. David R. Legates in support of defendants’ reply to plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Freud - Studies on hysteria

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Index:Trishasti-Shalaka-Purusa-Caritra-1.pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

File:War poems.djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Puntofijo Pact

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

In Plenty and In Time of Need

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Works of Author:Carson Cistulli ?

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Imam Ali's First Sermon in His Peak of Eloquence

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Letter from Ali Khan, Majid Khan's father

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hymni i Flamurit

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Setne Khamwas and Naneferkaptah

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Three articles about Johann Christian Claudius Devaranne

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

US-PD works in UK

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion nominations at Commons for PD-UN work post 1984

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Luceafărul

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Legislation-CAGov, a.k.a. documents hosted under the auspices of the Reproduction of Federal Law Order
{{closed|Templates updated to indicate PD in USA —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)|text= First of all, this is not a proposal for deletion, or at least I hope not—there are a lot of works hosted here under this legislation, and it would be a shame for them to be removed. However, I notice that the order requires as a condition of reproduction that "due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced", which to my understanding does not allow for derivative works. If I am correct, then this may not be compatible with our copyright policy, and I think a discussion on this matter is warranted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Note, I am putting this forward under the assumption that this category is broader than {{tl|PD-EdictGov}} allows for. I could be wrong about this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting conceptually as we would always look to reproduce faithfully, though we would say derivatives can be generated, though derivatives can be described as a omnibus, or components, rather than accurate reproduction. I am comfortable stipulating in our licence tag that derivatives should still represent the condition of reproduction. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That could be reasonable, though not in the spirit of our policy's "without exception and without limitation (except as explicitly allowed below)", though reproduction accuracy could be added to the list of acceptable limitations in the copyright policy.
 * More concerning to me is the fact that, since there is no explicit release to make derivative works, the phrasing of the reproduction order in my mind does not only restrict any such derivative works, but actually removes any implied license to create any in the first place.
 * An acceptable solution to my thinking would be to treat this license as purely informational, but to require that works so licensed also be licensed under an acceptable license such as {{tl|PD-EdictGov}}, which most of them would be regardless. This approach is already used with some licenses such as {{tl|PD-old-50}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Beleg Tâl}} For the assistance of the community, could you please provide a page and anchor link to the statement that you cite. I personally don't want to get caught up in an overarching concept where a more nuanced set of statements is appropriate. The licences have developed over time, and numbers of governments approach to licensing. It is not WMF's position that should be our approach, so let us explore it appropriately. To crack the vernacular, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is the line from our copyright policy, describing the content we may host: "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 (except as explicitly allowed below)." Emphasis mine, with the explicit allowances being specifically "simple attribution" and "transmission of freedoms".
 * More explicitly, from our licensing compatibility page: "Non-derivative works are prohibited on Wikisource, whose license allows end-users and redistributors to make derivative works from all Wikisource content." This page also lists past discussions that establish this consensus.
 * I actually do want to get caught up in overarching concept: I want to make sure that all works that are hosted under any license that only allow reproduction are actually hostable. I think a nuanced set of statements could address the overarching concept sufficiently, by either clarifying that these licenses aren't non-derivative, or by taking simple and appropriate steps to ensure that such works are also hosted under a different, compatible license, or through some other means I haven't thought of. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this accuracy clause any different from the one in the crown wavier license which proceeded {{tl|OGL3}}? A big ask would of course be for Wikimedia Canada to lobby for OGL implementation on Canadian Govt (Crown) works, but I don't see that happening very quickly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * {{tl|OGL3}} explicitly allows anyone to "adapt the Information" and only requires attribution, neither of which is true of {{tl|Legislation-CAGov}}. I don't know whether we have any works based on a comparable crown waiver that preceded {{tl|OGL3}}, but if we do then my concern would apply to those as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Is what we do considered a derivative work? We're presenting the original text and graphics without annotation. I think an annotated work -- like Constitution Act, 1867 (annotated) -- would be derivative, but reproducing the unadulterated content appears to be in line with the spirit of the law. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * What we do is not derivative, but our copyright policy mandates that all hosted works are licensed such that anyone can create derivative works if they so wish. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oooooh. I understand now.
 * So, firstly, I think anything that we're hosting that's annotated by enWS users is clearly against the original license since that's a derivative work. There's a few works like that, like the Constitution Act I linked previously. And secondly, I do believe that our own CC-By-SA 3.0 license, which allows for derivatives works, is incompatible since we'd be releasing our hosted work with a more permissive license than the original.
 * From my non-lawyer perspective, I think you're correct in that the license is incompatible with our own licensing. But I think we may want to confirm with a real lawyer? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten about annotations (and user translations too) which are as you say derivative works created by WS users. Good catch. To your other comment: CC-BY-SA applies only to our contributions, and not to third-party content such as hosted works. Third-party content is available under whatever compatible license that it was already under: PD, CC, or whatever. (It would be nice if we had a real lawyer to confirm all our discussions; it would make curating WS:CV so much easier!) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Are there any further thoughts on this? I'm currently thinking to add a US-specific phrase inside {{tl|Legislation-CAGov}} that states: "This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 206.01 of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents.""

I'd be curious whether it's even possible for a work to meet {{tl|Legislation-CAGov}} but not {{tl|PD-EdictGov}}. The former includes "consolidations of enactments of the Government of Canada" and "reasons for decisions of federally-constituted courts and administrative tribunals"; do those count as "edicts of government" under US law? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

PD-INGov

 * Further note: PD-INGov appears to have the same problem. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In PD-INGov, (section 52-1-r, Indian Copyright Act) derivatives are not prohibited (except when the Govt. is selling a parallel version), condition being that a disclaimer be put up that the version is not authorised by the Govt. Hrishikes (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 52-1-r appears to be talking about translations. I think the relevant section is 52-1-q, which makes no mention of a disclaimer. But I could be wrong, it's kind of hard to read Indian Copyright Law with how it's formatted. I think PD-INGov is fine. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Section 52-1-q permits "reproduction" and "publication" of certain works; 52-1-r permits "translation" of works; neither appears to permit other modification of works. It may be fine, but I think that it's unlikley for INGov to be fine and CAGov to be not fine at the same time. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Derivatives like annotated versions are allowed for INGov material; please see the court judgements cited by Mahitgar at Scriptorium Hrishikes (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This article linked by Mahitgar states "The judgment or order of a court, tribunal or other judicial authority is exempted from copyright protection." This sentence itself, if it is part of Indian copyright law, is enough to make such judgments and orders hostable. In that case, if that were the wording used in PD-INGov I would gladly concede that this license is sufficient to host the judgment or order of a court, tribunal or other judicial authority. However, neither PD-INGov nor Indian copyright law appear to provide such broad copyright exemptions, nor do I see these exemptions applied to documents other than court orders and judgments. (I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just saying that I still don't see, in the linked legislation, the freedoms required by our copyright policy. —And keep in mind, that even if PD-INGov doesn't provide a suitable license, most if not all of these works are still hostable under PD-EdictGov, so I'm not suggesting the removal of works that are licensed that way either.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that article; please go through para 6 of this landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India and this judgement, based on the earlier one. The cases were about copyright of derivative works (annotated court judgements). The court ruled that copyright of the annotation portion belonged to the editor, and this judgement was based on 52-1-q. This interpretation of the Supreme Court is therefore applicable to any item mentioned in that section. Hrishikes (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, only applies to "The act of reproduction of any judgment or order of the Court, Tribunal or any other judicial authority" (quoted from para. 6), and mentions in passing "the very purpose of making these judgments in public domain". The other document says "The website [i.e. JUDIS] is easily accessible to all and the information available falls within the public domain." So here we have evidence that court judgments are explicitly PD, but not (necessarily) other works covered by 52(1)(q), nor does 52(1)(q) actually say they're PD. In fact, PD-INGov says the opposite: "This work still copyrighted".
 * Do you think PD-INGov could be updated to say that, based on court precedent, works covered by 52(1)(q) appear to be in the public domain, even though 52(1)(q) itself only gives allowance for reproduction and translation, and even then only under certain conditions? And that such documents aren't actually copytrighted after all? OR, that court judgments are explicitly PD based on court precedent, but other works covered by 52(1)(q) are copyrighted and subject to the restrictions of 52(1)(q), and therefore can only be hosted if an additional license (such as PD-EdictGov) applies? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The judgement of a court is basically an interpretation of the law of the land. Here 52-1-q was explicitly cited in the judgement. The section itself does not discriminate between various items covered by it. So the items are not separable. All or none will apply here. If the court judgement gives a certain interpretation, it will apply to the whole section, because of lack of discrimination within that section. Hrishikes (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Based in the info you've provided, I've drafted a new, more accurate version of PD-INGov at User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/pd-ingov. What do you think? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Citation should be to the original judgement at http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=30019. Please read pages 36-39 for understanding the viewpoint of the court. As per my understanding, the term "public domain" as used by the court is different from the sense ascribed in wikiprojects. Basically, the court says (p. 39) that the items covered in the INGov template comes under the definition of "government work" as per section 2(k) and the Government owns the first copyright to these items as per section 17(d). But because of exemption under section 52(1)(q), these are in the public domain and derivative works are permissible. This means that copyright actually does exist; the court uses the term public domain in the sense of a CC license; but permits derivatives without any restriction. Moreover, addition of commentary and other original matter to legislative acts is permitted in 52-1-q itself; the court judgement extends it to court documents. Hrishikes (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. If the term "public domain" were used in the same sense as used in our copyright policy we'd be completely in the clear. If it's used in another sense then I don't know how we are to determine if it is compatible with our policy. The works do need to be "in the public domain or released under a license compatible with the free content definition" [namely that they] "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" with the only exceptions being simple attribution and transmission of freedoms. This is our policy. If, in your opinion, the words "public domain" used in the Supreme Court decision grant these necessary freedoms, then I am happy with the drafted replacement license tag and I think we can agree that this is sufficient grounds for hosting all of these works at Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Freedoms are not restricted, as far as I can see. Moreover, in practice, annotated versions of laws and judgements are regularly published by reputed publishers. So the template is OK, I think. Hrishikes (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Query, Does Indian law implement database rights? Some of what I was planning very long term was compilation of "Table of effects" where there wasn't one in the scans?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Original matter can be added while reproducing Indian laws as per section 52-1-q-ii of Indian Copyright Act. Hrishikes (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

}}
 * sign=Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Images used in The Higher Education of Women

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright in author's home country

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status of court submissions

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Namibia, Land of the Brave

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The Chaos

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Index:A Book of the West (vol. 2).djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

PD status for new non-USA works that are PD in source country

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Kafka translations by Ian Johnston

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)