Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2019

The Elephant Man and other reminiscences

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Idealistic Reaction Against Science (1914).djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Essential History of Bulgaria in Seven Pages

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The Life of the Spider/Preface

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Index:Bergey's manual of determinative bacteriology.djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Tetrabiblos

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The Prince (Marriott)/Introduction

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:Non-Mathematism The Origin of the Mind and Concept of God.pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thailand PD Exempt and speeches

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The Complete Lojban Language (1997)/Chapter 1

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:Socialism and the great state.djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Selected Essays by Karl Marx translated by Henry James Stenning

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Index:Natural History (Rackham, Jones, & Eichholz) - Vol 05.djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

A fraternal greeting from the free Macedonian state - 1944 and other works

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Cordelia's Song

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The Dark Eidolon

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Apostille Convention

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Letter to Chairman Burr and Chairman Schiff, August 12, 2019

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Index:Canadian Singers and Their Songs.djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Imperial Household Law (1889)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Letter of loaning a statue of the goddess Ishtar to Amenhotep III

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The Exilarch's Letter

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status of Mao Zedong's work

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Guerilla Open Access Manifesto

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Page:American Seashells (1954).djvu/1 and others

 * IA said "no known copyright." may be PD not renewed, not here ; ; ; -- good one for a DRV. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 16:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've checked Stanford, and it doesn't turn up there, so it should be PD. I've opened up a request for undeletion on Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you. i would suggest not taking deletion at commons automatically; they in general do not do the research for renewals. when they are deleting archival material, it should go to a workflow for more research. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 14:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

ICD-11 MMS

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Semper Fidelis

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The Promised Key

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Lady Chatterley's Lover

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Essays in Persuasion

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The Fields of Athenry

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

National Pledge (India)

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

PrabuddhaBharata and PrabuddhaBharata/November 1930/The Economic Views of Swami Vivekananda

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The Christian%27s Secret of a Happy Life

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Triton Fight Song

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The Language of the Gods

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Constantinople Agreement

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence of Catalonia

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Policies of Resistance Economy (iran)

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Minister of Education, Singapore at 31st Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Council

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Though the Tortoise Lives Long translation

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hell Screen

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Works linked from Author:Sukavich Rangsitpol

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Bridegroom due to translation

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

A Tryst With Destiny

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Index:To the Victor Belongs the Spoils.djvu
{{closed|Deleted as copyvio, and notified Commons. --Xover (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)|text= Raised a concern here https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Vandenberg#Index:To_the_Victor_Belongs_the_Spoils.djvu back in 2014. and not much happened since then.

Bringing it here, so that there is at least a disscussion.

The problem is the inclusion of 'third-party' images which are NOT necessarily under the same Creative Commons license as the text. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Australian photographs taken before 1955 are public domain now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong country: Wikisource is hosted in the United States, not in Australia. It says that the document was published in 1999, and if this was when the photographs were first published, then they will be unfree for several more decades in the United States. I can also not find any evidence that the Creative Commons licence claim for the text is valid. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * My recollection is that the uploader of the original PDF, which was then moved to Common and converted to DJVU because the PDF wouldn't display, said his contribution was CC. This probably need someone with admin access at Commons and English Wikisource to do trace back what the originals were linking to. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Australian photographs created before 1946 were public domain in Australia in 1996 and would not have been restored by the URAA in the U.S. It is unlikely that photographs taken from external sources would have been first published in that paper.  If the Creative Commons license is not valid, that is another matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Australian photographs were in the public domain 50 years after the making of the negative, nothing to do with publication.section "Provisions as to photographs" Again having and researching an evidence base for any argument would be useful. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * When you state that something is in the public domain, you must also state in which country it is in the public domain. This is in particular important in countries which do not use the rule of the shorter term, such as the United States. No Australian photographs created before 1955 entered the public domain in the United States 50 years after creation of the negative. That's when the copyright expired in Australia, but USA uses different rules. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of such works expired in the U.S. when they were published without a copyright notice. Photos created 1946 and later could well have an issue though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Right. Australian photographs which were published usually entered the public domain either immediately upon publication (no notice) or 28 years after publication (no renewal). There could be some which were published with notice and renewal, but I suppose that's uncommon for non-US works. The main problems are photos not published until after 1963 (no renewal needed) and photos created after 1945 (URAA automatically added any missing notices and submitted any missing renewals). In either case, the copyright didn't expire in the United States 50 years after creation; that was only the case in Australia and in countries which recognise the rule of the shorter term. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless there is some evidence that a photo was kept unpublished for some time, the usual assumption for foreign photos is publication without notice. That also precludes renewals being an issue, though that is also a fallback sometimes if it turns out there was a notice.  But yes, the main problem would be photos created after 1945 -- those would have had their U.S. copyright restored.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Newspaper photographers seem to take lots of photographs of each event but only end up publishing one or two of them. Family photographs are also usually unpublished. Some of these unpublished photographs might later end up somewhere and become published a lot later. Therefore, it seems that most photographs are unpublished and that we can't assume that a photograph is published unless we have some indication that this is the case. Also, it does not seem safe to assume that a photograph was published without a notice, in particular not after many countries started signing the Universal Copyright Convention which mentions copyright notices. Most European publications currently contain a copyright notice, although this was a lot less common in the past. The only thing we can safely assume is that pictures were published without a renewal as there should have been very few people outside the United States who bothered submitting a renewal to the United States authorities. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the images post-date 1955. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (To the Victor Belongs the Spoils)
Ok, this has now been sitting as a known copyvio since 2014 (that's 5 years!) and nobody has worked on it since did the work to determine what copyright statuses they could back then. This discussion has pretty much just confirmed that anything in there not published pre-1946 is a copyvio, and has been sitting here unclosed for 3.5 years! And the file is hosted on Commons, where I can pretty much guarantee that if we file a deletion proposal it will get nuked as soon as someone gets to that point in the backlog.

Even allowing for a generally conservative approach and wanting to salvage as much as we can, there are limits to what legal liability we can and should shoulder (and subject our volunteers and reusers to) and how much effort we should expend on saving this particular work (where, I'll note, the original author has been notably lax about copyright for someone wanting to release their own work as CC). If nobody in that time is willing to put in the effort and do the work required to salvage what can be salvaged, then perhaps the work is not worth salvaging.

So I say it's time to close this, delete the index and pages, notify Commons, and move on. And absent some actual progress, plausible arguments, or well-founded objections, in some reasonable timeframe (and I mean measured in days not years, just to be clear), that is what I will do. Please chime in on this (whatever your position: even "Dunno" and "Don't care" would be appreciated if that is where you're at)! --Xover (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The ideal course of action is for a user to censor the offending images from the source scan so that we can transclude it using image removed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I'll second that: redacting just the problematic images and keeping the rest would be the ideal resolution if someone was willing to take that on. And while it would be quite a lot of work, ShakespeareFan00 has made a great roadmap of which images need to be redacted, which should make the job much more manageable. --Xover (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

}}
 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Letter to Donald Trump from President Nixon

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Schuman Declaration

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ahdname of Milodraž

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Ode to Nemanja

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The Buckwheat Season

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Whitetissues

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Fuenteovejuna

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Cornell Concert Commission Director Interview

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Combat Order of the 8th Army of Red Army for subjugating Estonia on 13 June 1940

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Pansies (1929) by D. H. Lawrence

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Children's Development of Social Competence Across Family Types

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Navajo Nation Statement (November 27, 2017)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Itineraries for March 19-April 9, 2018 (Justin Trudeau)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Peoples Agreement of the World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Constitution of the Libertarian Party of Canada

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Gordon Brown's speech on becoming Leader of the UK Labour Party, 24 June 2007

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

On My Faith and My Church

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Abdul Rahman Shalabi v. Barack Obama (2009-09-26)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

And so his boyhood ...

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

George

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The Great Heresies

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The House of Ptolemy

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Foye email of Sept 13 2013

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Cyprus 13 amendments and Thirteen amendments

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Glory to Hong Kong

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

European Charter on Freedom of the Press

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Nupedia Open Content License

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Best plays of 1941-42 and the year book of the drama in America.pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Act of State Independence of the Republic of Abkhazia

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

India States Reorganisation Commission Report Telangana Andhra

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Foundation Stone Meditation

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

=== Address by Mr. Ilham Aliyev, Head of the Parliamentary delegation of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the PACE on item "Europe's fight against economic and transnational organized crime" (Strasbourg, April 23-27, 2001) ===


 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

=== The rise, decline and renewals of Sramanic religious traditions within the Indic civilisation with particular reference to the evolution of Jain sramanic culture and its impact on the Indic civilisation ===


 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Quietly Night is falling...

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Flag of ASEAN.svg

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Translations by Manish Modi

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

A Little Fable

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Strider: the Story of a Horse + illustrations

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

File:OTTO WEININGER (THEODOR LESSING) english translation.pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Afghanistan China Notes Establishing Diplomatic Relations

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Letter to George Bush from Ariel Sharon announcing his disengagement plan

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Bhaja Govindam

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

USSR's President of the National Defence Commission radio speech - July 3, 1941

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The United States of Lyncherdom

 * This section was archived on a request by: — Tarmstro99 18:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

US-specific notices in non-US copyright tags

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion for a small change to PD-EdictGov

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The Plays of Roswitha

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Extension of Canadian term to 70 p.m.a

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The Practice of the Love of Jesus Christ

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Index:Life-Of-Pingali-Suranarya.pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Work by Communist Party of China

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The Tremendous Event

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Constitution of the People's Republic of China - AMENDMENT FIVE

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Philadelphia Negro A Social Study.djvu potentially copyrighted section

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:Our Island Story- A Child's History of England.pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:Poetical Works of Robert Herrick.djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:War and Peace.djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Nobel speeches/lectures

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

1934 Interview with Joseph Stalin

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The Man on the Ground

 * This section was archived on a request by: If there are other works by this author that need to be deleted, someone should compile a list and start a new discussion —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

File:The Murder on the Links.pdf
{{closed|Deleted old files, kept new PD upload. --Xover (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)|text= The book The Murder on the Links is now fair game. However, this work has a modern cover and modern notes that need to be removed. There's also no need to transcribe it; the PDF was produced from an ePub and the raw text could be pulled directly from the file. In general, it's better if we use US works published before 1989 and better 1978, because then the lack of a more modern copyright notice would put any new material or edits into the public domain. If not, usually we're going to have to drop the cover and any new notes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree that this copy is outside of our bounds because of the 2011 copyright notice to HarperCollins—who didn't exist as a company until 1990. Need to find a scanned first edition to proofread. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Also Index:The Murder on the Links.pdf which someone apparently started to transcribe in good faith (sigh) :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This edition of the book dates to 1984. The copyright notice states that it "contains the complete text of the original hardcover edition," just set in a new typeface. It's also freely available in Google Books, which lists the copyright date as 1923. I don't know if it'd be useful to you folks, but wanted to point it out. 173.80.109.236 00:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that actually works. Anything newer would have no copyright because there's no proper copyright notice on the post-1923 material. I've uploaded it as File:Agatha Christie-The Murder on the Links.pdf.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The cover design, however, may be under copyright. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It was published in the US without proper copyright notice, so it should be PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * There is a clear copyright notice on the back of the title page, stating "All rights reserved", and credit for the cover design. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The copyright notice says "Copyright 1923 by Dodd, Mead and Company. Copyright renewed 1950, Agatha Christie Mallowan." If it applies to the cover, then it expired in 2019. If it doesn't apply to the cover, then it had no proper copyright notice. The US Copyright Office on the Jaws cover emphasizes the importance of having the correct name, and neither the name of the publisher or cover designer is mentioned in the notice. The Copyright Compendium III says "note: Using an antedated notice in an anonymous work, pseudonymous work, or work made for hire may affect the term of the copyright if the work was first published in the United States between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989. In such cases, the term is computed from the year of publication that appears in the notice, rather than from the actual year of first publication." If this is not a work made for hire, it seems highly unlikely (as per the Jaws decision) that the copyright notice includes the cover.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

{{outdent talk|::::::}} {{re|Prosfilaes|Beeswaxcandle|ShakespeareFan00|EncycloPetey}} Do I understand correctly from the above that File:The Murder on the Links.pdf and Index:The Murder on the Links.pdf should be deleted as copyvio, but File:Agatha Christie-The Murder on the Links.pdf should be kept as properly out of copyright (including covers etc.)? --Xover (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That fileFile:Agatha Christie-The Murder on the Links.pdf  may also have an issue with the cover, unless there evidence otherwise, not mentioned in this disscussion yet. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Where's the copyright notice? American works published before 1989 needed proper copyright notice, and this doesn't have one covering the cover. I said that above.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I still think it would be better to find a first edition, but noted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The cover appears when viewing the file initially, but once you open the file, it is not displayed. There appears to be damage to this PDF, but I do not know if more pages than just the cover are affected. We also do not know whether a separate application for copyright for the cover (by Virginia M. Smith) was granted. All we know is that the publisher credited the designer. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * When I open the file, both in Google Chrome and Adobe Acrobat Reader, the cover is displayed. I don't know which program you're using. If that's the only problem, it can be converted to DjVu.
 * The cover needs a proper copyright notice; it lacks one. If you want to see if there's a separate application filed with the copyright office, go to the Copyright Office Records Catalog and check; I searched for both Murder on the Links and Smith Virginia, and in neither case did something appropriate come up.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am using Firefox, and am viewing the file in my web browser from its location on Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded a DjVu translation at File:Agatha Christie-The Murder on the Links.djvu.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay? I don't want to close this myself, but I would like to know if this copy will work or if we need to search for another copy. I've got a supposed facsimile edition, but it's not explicit about its copyright status either, and my pile of works to scan is deep enough that I'd like to avoid adding something else to it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed resolution (The Murder on the Links)
Ping previous participants in this discussion:

The following pages/files are involved in this discussion:
 * File:The Murder on the Links.pdf (delete)
 * Index:The Murder on the Links.pdf (delete)
 * Proofread pages under: Special:PrefixIndex/Page:The Murder on the Links.pdf (delete)
 * File:Agatha Christie-The Murder on the Links.pdf (delete)
 * File:Agatha Christie-The Murder on the Links.djvu (keep)

I'm going to go ahead and assume that Prosfilaes' latest DjVu is acceptable to all. Which means I intend to close this discussion by deleting the first bullet and the pages in the third as copyvio; the index in the second as redundant when the file and pages are deleted; and the fourth as redundant/duplicate of the fifth. In other words, to only keep the final DjVu.

If anybody has objections or corrections or needs more time to consider, please respond here ASAP. If you agree with this course of action, please also say so here ASAP. I can't see that we really have any issues outstanding here so I'd like to close it out and clear the backlog. --Xover (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * --Prosfilaes (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

}}
 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

All works under Category:PD-IndonesianGov
{{closed|All infringing works deleted; EdictGovInd template deleted and works recategorized; PD-IndGov template updated for 2014 law. --Xover (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)|text= The license {{tl|PD-IndonesianGov}} (not to be confused with {{tl|PD-EdictGovIndonesian}}) is explicitly nonderivative and therefore unacceptable here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How many of these works have the correct license? Are there any of the works that ought to have a different license? Otherwise, I agree that we cannot / should not host works under the stated tag. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of them are listed with multiple license tags and can be kept. Some of them I'm not sure. Maybe we should discuss each individually. I'd delete the license tag though, or at least make a note on it that works cannot be hosted under the license unless they are PD in the US for some other reason. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

{{outdent talk|::}} Relevant to this discussion, I think our copy of Copyright Act of Republic of Indonesia (the basis for the distinction drawn above between {{tl|PD-IndonesianGov}} and {{tl|PD-EdictGovIndonesian}}) may be out of date. Copyright Act of Republic of Indonesia bills itself as a 2002 act as amended in 2014, but the 2014 revision legislation (available from WIPO, with a not-so-great machine translation into English) appears to be more in the nature of a replacement than an amendment. The rule against copyrightability of governmental works is now stated in Article 42 in terms that do not entirely overlap with Article 13 of the 2002 act; there is a new provision in Article 41 concerning limits on copyrightability of certain works; and there is a series of exceptions under new Articles 43–49, some of which may be pertinent for our purposes.

All of which is just by way of saying that perhaps this discussion needs to be tabled until we as a community develop a fuller sense of what Indonesian copyright law actually requires (and permits). Tarmstro99 23:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * {{ping|RaymondSutanto|John Vandenberg}} Are you able to advise us on this matter? — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, {{ping|Tarmstro99}} is right: the template is out of date. The newest Copyright Act that we use is the 2014 edition (you can see it on Indonesian Wikisource: id:Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 28 Tahun 2014). The Copyright Act says that all of Acts made by government doesn't have any copyright, on Article 42 (Tidak ada Hak Cipta atas hasil karya berupa: ... b. peraturan perundang-undangan). The 2014 edition is a replacement for the 2002 edition. RaymondSutanto (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * {{ping|RaymondSutanto}} is the legislation retroactive, does it affect government works published before 2014?—Also, this discussion does not cover Acts of government (which are hostable under {{tl|PD-EdictGov}}, but rather works created by the Indonesian government that are not legislative. Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is retroactive. Works that are not legislative are also counted (included) on Article 42, for example Government Regulation (Peraturan Pemerintah) and Presidential Regulation (Peraturan Presiden) that are not a legislative law. RaymondSutanto (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There's a (mediocre) translation of the 2014 law here. The changes that affect us aren't substantial. Government works that aren't listed in section 42 are still licensed in a non-compatible fashion (no derivatives except for certain purposes). The works listed in section 42 are the same as section 12 of the 2002 law, except that "scripture or religious symbols" are now exempt from copyright, and "decisions of arbitration boards or of other similar agencies" are no longer exempt from copyright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (All works under Category:PD-IndonesianGov)
Ok, I've put some effort into researching this. The texts in that category break down as follows:


 * Agreement on the Issue of Dual Nationality between the Republic of Indonesia and the People's Republic of China—No source. Unknown copyright status for translation. Original is PD-IndonesianGov and ditto in the PRC. If official, translation is PD-IndonesianGov. PD-EdictGov in the US.
 * Airasia flight QZ 8501 passenger manifest—Proposed for deletion separately as out of scope.
 * Bangkok Declaration—Co-authored work by the signatories, and PD-*Gov in all the signatories that have such a provision. PD-EdictGov in the US.
 * Cabinet Presidium Decision 127 of 1966—No source. Third party translation of unknown copyright status. Original would be PD-IndonesianGov and PD-EdictGov, but out of scope as a non-English work.
 * Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia—No source. But an official translation is available online and is clearly PD-IndonesianGov and PD-EdictGov.
 * Declaration by the Government of Indonesia concerning the Exclusive Economic Zone of Indonesia—Official translation, sourced to the UN. PD-IndonesianGov and PD-EdictGov.
 * File:The Exclusive Economic Zone of Indonesia.djvu—Official translation, sourced to the UN. PD-IndonesianGov and PD-EdictGov.
 * Indonesia Raya—National Anthem. In copyright but with "exemption from infringement" exemptions in Indonesia. Copyright in the US until 2023. Also includes a Wikisource translation outside the Translation namespace, and constitutes an unmarked annotated edition.
 * Jakarta Charter—Third party translation. Original is PD-IndonesianGov. Translation is copyright in the US until 2043.
 * Joint Statement by the Philippines, the Federation of Malaya and Indonesia (5 August 1963)—Co-authored work by the signatories, and PD-*Gov in all the signatories that have such a provision. PD-EdictGov in the US.
 * Manila Accord (31 July 1963)—Co-authored work by the signatories, and PD-*Gov in all the signatories that have such a provision. PD-EdictGov in the US.
 * Manila Declaration (3 August 1963)—Co-authored work by the signatories, and PD-*Gov in all the signatories that have such a provision. PD-EdictGov in the US.
 * Presidential Decision 240 of 1967—No source. Third party translation of unknown copyright status. Original would be PD-IndonesianGov and PD-EdictGov, but out of scope as a non-English work.
 * Presidential Instruction 14 of 1967—No source. Third party translation of unknown copyright status. Original would be PD-IndonesianGov and PD-EdictGov, but out of scope as a non-English work.
 * Proclamation of Indonesian Independence—Third party translation of unknown copyright status. Original would be PD-IndonesianGov and PD-EdictGov, but out of scope as a non-English work.
 * Suharto's Resignation Speech—Third party translation in copyright in the US until 2093 or so. Original would be PD-IndonesianGov and PD-EdictGov, but out of scope as a non-English work.
 * Treaty of Friendship between the Federation of Malaya and the Republic of Indonesia—Co-authored work by the signatories, and PD-*Gov in all the signatories that have such a provision. PD-EdictGov in the US.

Based on this, the following works are non-compliant with policy and should be deleted:


 * Agreement on the Issue of Dual Nationality between the Republic of Indonesia and the People's Republic of China—No source. Unknown copyright status for translation.
 * Cabinet Presidium Decision 127 of 1966—No source. Third party translation of unknown copyright status.
 * Indonesia Raya—National Anthem. In copyright but with "exemption from infringement" exemptions in Indonesia. Copyright in the US until 2023. Also includes a Wikisource translation outside the Translation namespace, and constitutes an unmarked annotated edition.
 * Jakarta Charter—Third party translation. Original is PD-IndonesianGov. Translation is copyright in the US until 2043.
 * Presidential Decision 240 of 1967—No source. Third party translation of unknown copyright status.
 * Presidential Instruction 14 of 1967—No source. Third party translation of unknown copyright status.
 * Proclamation of Indonesian Independence—Third party translation of unknown copyright status.
 * Suharto's Resignation Speech—Third party translation in copyright in the US until 2093 or so.

In addition, PD-IndonesianGov describes what are in effect -NC and -ND exceptions to infringing acts from Article 43 (e.g. filesharing is ok if it is not for profit), but does not exempt works from copyright (it's effectively an extended fair use clause). All work remaining in the category should be relicensed under the text of PD-EdictGovIndonesian, but the latter template should be renamed to the former for clarity (PD-*Gov suggests it's PD as a work of the named government, like PD-USGov, but PD-Edict*Gov suggests a work that's PD as a work of a foreign government, like PD-EdictGov in the US).

Based on this I have also opened a discussion on Commons to clarify whether their apparent acceptance of Article 43 works is deliberate or an error. --Xover (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC) }}
 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

"Courtesy of" images in Advanced Automation for Space Missions

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Index:Criminal Code of Canada.pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Flag Code of India

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Polyushko Pole

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Index:Gillies plastic surgery 1920.djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thailand PD Exempt and speeches
{{closed|1=works by Sukavich Rangsitpol are almost certainly covered by contemporaneous copyright of the author, or UNESCO's non-commercial copyright, it is not believed that works are exempted by provisions of Thai copyright law. — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC) {{quotation| {{closed|uncollapsed=yes|Kept as exempt official work. --Xover (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)|text= Do speeches by government officials fall under the auspices of {{tl|PD-TH-exempt}}? According to the banner, it applies to:
 * 1) If suitable and verified permissions are provided through the c:Com:OTRS system from the author of the work(s), then we would be able to host any permitted works. This would be in the terms of the permissions declaring the works to be made available under a suitable creative commons licence as described at Help:Copyright tags
 * 2) An author page is appropriate for solely the listing of the works where these works are available on the web.
 * 3) * Where a work is available elsewhere on the web in html form, then a wikilink to the work is suitable
 * 4) * Where a scanned/electronic version of the work is available in PDF, DJVU, WORD, then after the title listing then linking through use of {{tl|external scan link}} is allowed.
 * text=

{{quotation|
 * 1) News of the day and facts having the character of mere information which is not a work in literary, scientific or artistic domain
 * 2) Constitution and legislations
 * 3) Regulations, by-laws, notifications, orders, explanations and official correspondence of the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units
 * 4) Judicial decisions, orders, decisions and official reports
 * 5) Translation and collection of those in (1) to (4) made by the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units}}

I'm looking at Teachers' Learning in a Changing World (1996) by the Thai Minister for Education. There's no indication of where this speech was given, or of the copyright status of the translation. That aside, assuming that the translation is fine, I can't tell if it is covered appropriately by this license.

It's clearly not news, constitution, or legislation, so (1) and (2) are off the table. Nor is it judicial, so (4) is out. The question is then if this counts as a "notification" or "explanation" or "official correspondence" of the Minister, nor am I sure how to go about figuring it out officially.

-- Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * {{ping|Mukkakukaku}} I have no idea, but I'd wager that speeches don't count. It might depend on how the transcription of the speech was first published. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The work is a report of a paper delivered at a SEAMEO symposium. "The Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) is a regional intergovernmental organization established in 1965 among governments of Southeast Asian countries to promote regional cooperation in education, science and culture in the region". The Ministers of Education of the members sit on its council, and it appears to be hosted by Thailand. The working language is almost certainly English (the members have no other language in common that I can see), so the translation is by the Minister or his Ministry. In other words, you can probably take your pick of the three possible reasons for copyright exemption in 7.2(3).{{parabr}}So, unless anybody wants to argue otherwise, I'm going to go ahead and close this as {{vk}} fairly soon. --Xover (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

}}}}


 * https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2019
 * The Copyrights belongs to His Excellency Mr.Sukavich Rangsitpol.If someone wants to argue otherwise please check the following numbers
 * Please Keep this page for Future References.
 * Please Undeleted The Minister Work.
 * 1) Ministry of Education
 * 662 282 5765 call center 1579
 * Education Policy depends on Minister of Education and would change when the Minister was replaced
 * 2)The Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO)
 * 662 391 0144,662 391 0256
 * 3)UNESCO Bangkok
 * 662 391 0577
 * {{unsignedIP|2405:9800:bc11:bd0d:dda7:8f2a:c48:ca52}}
 * {{ping|Xover}} I think the IP user has a point. The work in question, Teachers' Learning in a Changing World, was closed as "keep", but was then deleted under this discussion which doesn't mention it at all. Was this a mistaken deletion or am I missing something? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * {{re|Beleg Tâl}} The IP is wrong about nearly everything; but you are correct! It was swept up in the other bulk deletion because the analysis on the author page linked from that discussion listed it as a publication of SEAMEO; but we’d initially kept it because it was a speech to SEAMEO by the Minister of Education in his official capacity (if it had truly been under the personal copyright of Rangsitpol as the IP claims it would have been copyvio). I’m unable to perform the undelete right now, but can do it next weekend if nobody gets around to it before then. And my apologies for the gaffe! —Xover (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * {{re|Xover}}
 * English is not my language,I might lead you to the wrong direction.I do not know if my following explanation would help.
 * He is politician that mean all his work and speeched copyrights is under PD-TH-exempt {{tlx|PD-TH-exempt}} {{tlx|authority control}}2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:E83A:CD55:61FE:71C4 23:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m afraid you’re mistaken. Thai copyright law contains no general exemption for works by politicians. The only relevant exemptions are for works of the actual government, including works by sitting ministers when acting in their official capacities. Works by Rangsitpol before or after his term as Minister of Education are not exempt from copyright, and neither are works that were not produced as part of his official duties as Minister. And even for works that would be exempt, third party reporting and translations would have their own copyright. --Xover (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A politician does hold copyright over his work. The copyright over a work created by a politician does belong to the politician. Being a politician does not mean your works are copyright-free. PD-TH-exempt only covers public information, such as legislation, judicial decisions, news of the day, etc, or translations thereof made by public agencies. And the work in question does not fall under any of the PD-TH-exempt criteria at all. --Miwako Sato (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * {{re|Miwako Sato}} You have authority’s to delete The Page in Thai .I was surprised that you didn’t say it is useless and should not be kept.
 * https://th.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%B4%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%A8%E0%B8%A9:MobileDiff/99660
 * His Excellency Mr.Sukavich Rangsitpol was CEO at American oil company .He probably does his own translation.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:451:D4F5:8595:AC73 18:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * {{re|Xover}} you are right.All his work that in Wikisource is
 * {{tlx|PD-TH-exempt}}
 * {{tlx|authority control}}
 * Because it is about Education Reform.It was the work that he did during his term as Minister Of Education.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:DDA7:8F2A:C48:CA52 18:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/csee.2014.13.1.54
 * In this Link he was Omitted from Minister of Education List.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:8485:D00B:9E51:6E4D 18:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

{{collapse top}}
 * Right after the 1997 Asian financial crisisIncome in the northeast, the poorest part of the country, rose by 46 percent from 1998to 2006. Nationwide poverty fell from 21.3 to 11.3 percent. Thailand's Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, fell from .525 in 2000 to .499 in 2004 (it had risen from 1996 to 2000) versus 1997 Asian financial crisis

It was that effect from His Excellency Mr.Sukavich Rangsitpol Education Reform.

He did so much for the poor children in Thailand and someone hated it.That why they try to delete his work.If you are not from teacher family who has many benefits during his time as a Minister of Education.You will not know .2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:8485:D00B:9E51:6E4D 18:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There will be a lot of people coming along in the future try to delete his work.Please remains calm,your opinion is right.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:8485:D00B:9E51:6E4D 18:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

{{smallrefs}} {{collapse bottom}}
 * {{comment}} I have deleted another work added by this user, the work of a person who was not a politician at the time the work was written, who was stated as being resident in Japan, and for which there was not the evidence that the works would have been exempted from Thai copyright law. It would seen to me that the IP editor has a different understanding of copyright than other users at this site. — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Further, there would seem to be a clear misunderstanding. My reading of the {{tl|PD-TH-exempt}} is more akin to {{tl|PD-GovEdict}} than {{tl|PD-USGov}}, and it doesn't put the work into the public domain just for its creation during a period of a public role, it is a more limited and specific set of criteria. The works will need to be released by the author under an OTRS declaration (see c:Com:OTRS) if they are to be reproduced. — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @billinghurst All the work I uploaded was his work as Education Minister,Including the speech he gave during that time.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 10:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The second appears to be a summation regarding what the Ministry's policies are, and being on a Ministry of Education website, it looks like that someone is the Ministry of Education itself. Not only does the original document mention Bumrung Chiablam, the text was uploaded here by Bumrung Chiablam. But by the design of the site I'm going to go ahead and guess that Bumrung Chiablam is an employee in the Ministry of Education's ICT department that created that custom microsite to which this document belongs (a feat often called out in 1997, before CMSs took over; I've been credited like that myself), or possibly someone serving as the secretary for a meeting or conference where the information was presented, and not an actual author of the content. Meaning it is a MoE document, and falls under PD-ThaiGov under the same provisions as the document at question in the thread above. The third is a "Paper submitted to the 45th session of the International Conference on Education, Geneva, 1996", by Rangsitpol, then sitting Minister of Education, and having just launched a new 10-year strategy for education connected with the w:1997 Constitution of Thailand (and surrounding events). IOW, I'd say this qualifies as PD-ThaiGov. --Xover (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Xover (talk) Your opinion was correct,why my upload was deleted.Should I wait for you to undeleted it.


 * The reason I upload to day because the person who nominated the article to be deleted using the reason that UNESCO doesn’t allow their materials for commercial.

I believe that UNESCO will not consider Wikisource us Commercials Site.

That way the articles should be deleted.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 14:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

{{comment}} — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Our terms, as explained at What Wikisource includes, require all work to be available for commercial use.
 * 2) That the person was the education minister does not put those works into the public domain per template:PD-TH-exempt
 * 3) I believe that generally works by this person will need the specific permission of the writer, so would need an OTRS permission, and we leverage the information as expressed at c:Com:OTRS
 * 4) Please stop bombarding this page with irrelevant text, it is not helping to provide your point of view, it just clouds the discussion, and lowers people's tolerances.


 * Try to keep Deformation in the article,even though it is against the law in Thailand now a day. Translation:Computer Crimes Act 2007

 2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:6916:15FC:254A:2D65 23:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC) 2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:6916:15FC:254A:2D65 23:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I was going to post that ,and I thought it would look better with the blue links.

The work has been there more than a year before it was deleted.And the other experience editor believe it could be undeleted.


 * I apologize for my behavior.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:6916:15FC:254A:2D65 23:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

{{collapse top}} ==Sukavich Rangsitpol Education Reform Policy==

Sukavich Rangsitpol
This article has previously been brought to this Noticeboard twice (Archive 279 and Archive 286) as well as in other venues. The talk page of the article has become a mess due to a group of connected contributors (likely a sock of Nafeby633) trying to argue and remove the material about the subject's ban of homosexuality and the procurement of computers, both of which are well-sourced. I am asking some experienced editor to take a look at the article and take action as may be deemed appropriate. Thanks. --G(x) (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I happened upon these edits the other day while on recent changes patrol. The above looks like a fair summary to me. In addition, the article is plagued by repeated, aggressive (re)additions of excessively promotional quotes, invalid or off-topic citations, and unfounded original research insinuating the article subject is to be credited for Thailand's recovery from the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Right after the 1997 Asian financial crisisIncome in the northeast, the poorest part of the country, rose by 46 percent from 1998to 2006. Nationwide poverty fell from 21.3 to 11.3 percent. name="WBBO-200511"Thailand's Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, fell from .525 in 2000 to .499 in 2004 (it had risen from 1996 to 2000) versus 1997 Asian financial crisis 2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thailand education reform 1995

In 1995, the minister of education, Sukavich Rangsitpol, launched a series of education reforms in 1995 with the goal of achieving educational excellence by 2007.

"The objective of education reform is to create learning individual, organization, and society. An educated person or the authentic learning outcome should possess the following abilities and characteristics which are based on Thai cultural heritage and appropriate level of education: good physical and mental health, critical thinking, intellectual inquisitiveness, professionalism, sense of responsibility, honesty, self-sacrifice, perseverance, team spirit, adherence to democracy, and love for king, country, and religion."

2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

According to UNESCO, Thailand education reform has led to the following results:


 * The educational budget increased from 133 billion baht in 1996 to 163 billion baht in 1997 (22.5% increase)
 * Since 1996, first grade students have been taught English and computer literacy.
 * Professional advancement from teacher level 6 to teacher level 7 without having to submit academic work for consideration was approved by the Thai government.
 * Free 12 years education for all children provided by the government. This program was added to the 1997 Constitution of Thailand and gave access to all citizens.

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Sukavich Rangsitpol

Author talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol

2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC) 2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 15:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

1) If the Thai Authorities realize it was the education reform policy that really increased income for the Poor. 2) The policy will be here waiting to help Thai people again.2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 15:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Reason I want to record the Policy

==User: G(x) Contribution ==

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Sukavich Rangsitpol

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Sukavich Rangsitpol

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sukavich_Rangsitpol 

@ Billinghurst

I apologize for my actions this week.I have been busy and the last Time I was satisfied with @Xover conclusion in July.But after a month everything is Deleted. Please kept the Author Page to yourself,so that the other paid cannot get it deleted.
 * Every thing I wrote was in Internet thus there will be a link.

I believe that The three people who try to defame the subject is paid .You should take look at their edit history.

Even the subject Thai Wikipedia was deleted all his work.

I want to upload all he did for Thailand and nominate the Deformation paragraph to be deleted.

Could you advise me where to upload the following in Wiki .2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:ADC2:525A:B13E:6C69 00:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It is not acceptable to this community for you to smear the intentions of others, completely unacceptable. To those people you should retract that allegation and offer an apology. I have explained how the works of the author can be held at this site by specific permission of the author. I cannot advise you on how to breach another person's copyright. Your contributions to this point have been problematic, and so has been your approach. This continual addition of works that are under a person's copyright simply needs to stop, and if you are unwilling to stop yourself, then you will be further forcing administrators to undertake restrictive measures. — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

}}
 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Public domain user translations

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Ka Mate

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Guantanamo-related documents (batch 1)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Commons DR that may have some relevance to enWS

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Little Bunny Foo Foo
{{closed|Original text found to be probable PD due to lack of copyright notice and migrated to a scan. Work used to scan-back had other lyrics still in copyright, and which have therefore been redacted.|text=

2006 import from enwp tagged as no source and no license for the last 12 years. According to this article its earliest plausible date is 1933, and the most likely range is around the 1960s. In any case, it is still in copyright in the US until some undetermined point after 2028. Our copy of the text is, according to the notes field, from “David Grover's 1997 album Sing a Song of Summer” which would be even worse if there's anything original in there (almost certainly not, but I haven't checked). --Xover (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * If it's an American work, it's easy for it to be in the public domain. If it was legally published before 1978 without copyright notice or legally published before 1964 and not renewed, it is PD. I'd almost argue that we could keep it based on that. If it's Canadian, then the URAA might have restored it, or it might be technically legally unpublished and life+70.
 * On the whole, I really want to give this a pass. It seems likely that it is purely public domain, and it's clearly abandoned copyright, being around for at least 50 years with no claim of authorship or copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that it bears the hallmarks of abandoned copyright. But we have the examples of things like "Happy Birthday" (or whatever song it was) where someone came forward in the 11th hour to claim copyright, based on some baroque set of rights transfers. Given we don't actually have any information about the source of our text beyond a clearly in-copyright 1997 musical album, nor even any information about this work's first publication, I don't see how we can reasonably keep this. All the information we actually do have suggests it is in copyright, and the exceptions (failure to obey formalities) are impossible to determine. That creates a, to me, unacceptable risk for our reusers (and us, but I'm less worried about that).{{parabr}}However, if we want to bend over backwards we could try to pursue precedent regarding oral transmission and copyright versus fixity. The above linked article does tend to point toward this work existing as a purely oral work for a long time, with first fixation into writing happening much later and by a third party. It is possible US copyright has some sort of quirk regarding such situations that will let us have a clear conclusion either way. For example, I believe, NZ, AUS, and Thai copyright law regulates traditional oral works specially. --Xover (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * One could also take the view that the 1997 version was either the reuse of a work that was not under copyright, or is equally in breach of copyright. If it is not found to be renewed then we can retain it if we have taken our reasonable steps to assure ourselves. There is no evidence presented whether the work is or is not in copyright, we just have an indication of when it was first published, and what copyright applies at the time. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But absent publication info we have no way to check for registrations, renewals, or presence or absence of copyright statements; all of which are essential for determining copyright status. --Xover (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak {{vk}} per Prosfilaes --DannyS712 (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * {{vk}} as almost certain to be PD, unless more info comes to light. Worth continuing to research. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * {{comment}} The community sentiment appears to be to keep this text under some kind of "I'm guessing it's PD. Somehow.” reasoning. That leaves us with the practical issue of how to resolve the maintenance tags on it: what do we give as a source, and what do we say the license is?{{parabr}}The source that is actually provided for it is a 1997 commercial audio recording that is clearly in copyright. The arguments for licensing above suggest an assumed {{tlx|PD-US-no-notice}} and/or {{tlx|PD-US-no-renewal}}. It would be pretty contradictory to tag a 1997 clearly copyrighted work as no-notice/no-renewal, and I don't really understand how y'all can just blindly guess no-notice/no-renewal when the actual source is unknown (we clearly need c:COM:PRP as local policy!), but that is the best I can come up with for this situation.{{parabr}}Can I get some confirmation that removing the two maint. tags ({{tlx|no source}} + {{tlx|no license}}), leaving the source as the 1997 recording, and adding the license tag {{tlx|PD-US-no-notice}} is in fact concomitant with the community's consensus here? If so I'll close this accordingly, complaining about it all the way, and linking this discussion (I ain't taking responsibility for this!) for further information.{{parabr}} Pinging discussion participants: @Prosfilaes, billinghurst, DannyS712, Beleg Tâl. --Xover (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So I found https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/the-hoax-behind-little-bunny-foo-foo, which provided some history. You can see that the story is discussed in The New Yorker, Volume 45, Part 7, from 1970, so it can be assumed to have been published before then. Having found no copyright for the original source (couldn't find the original), I would go with {{tlx|PD-US-no-notice}}. this email, while a hoax with some fake history, makes it clear that the story was known at least by 1997/03/06. Now, even if the story is known and agreed upon, there are variations. For now, I would support tagging as no-notice, and citing the given source as a reference for this specific version of a public domain story - does that make sense? I'm getting sucked into a rabbit hole and will probably do some more digging, but for now that is what I have. Happy holidays, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, here are the full lyrics published April 1970 without a copyright notice. This edition predates any known publication of the lyrics found by any of the researchers linked above, so it could very well be the first edition set in tangible form - which gives us our no-notice and a proper source. The linked work does not give an explicit citation for this song, but notes that uncited songs come from "the authors' experiences with day camps for retarded children." —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is another 1970 full-lyric source, also without copyright notice. This one is a University thesis, properly published the following year (1971). The author claims "traditional sources" as the origin of the song, so this is also a fixation of oral tradition (but the edition I linked above predates it). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, there is a short anecdote similar to the song, with the moral "hare today goon tomorrow", in the essay "Recreation or Wreck-reation" by Wayne W. Womer. The earliest edition of this which I could find is 1941, which also lacks copyright notice. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * According to this 1963 article in the Journal of American Folklore, there were at the time 4 versions in the Indiana University Folklore Archives of a story involving a rabbit "sometimes called Rabbit Fluff" who hits mice on the head and gets turned into a goon by his fairy godmother, with the moral "hare today goon tomorrow". It does not specify the contents of these stories, whether they are the song in question or some kind of precursor like Womer's essay or like this 1945 prose telling of the story. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * {{ping|DannyS712| Beleg Tâl}} That was a truly heroic effort by you both: very much appreciated!{{parabr}}I've grabbed the (now rather unfortunately named) 1970 work, uploaded and index'ed, and made a quick and dirty proofread of just the relevant page. Would appreciate if you'd take a look at Little Bunny Foo Foo and make any corrections and improvements you think are needed (did I mention it was quick and dirty?) before we close this discussion. --Xover (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * {{re|Xover}} thanks for doing that! This has opened up another can of worms now though, as all the other songs in that volume now need to be checked - see User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/Day Camping for the Retarded for progress. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Day Camping for the Trainable and Severely Mentally Retarded/Chapter 4
The work Day Camping for the Trainable and Severely Mentally Retarded is covered by PD-USGov. However, Chapter 4 contains several dozen camp songs that are not covered by PD-USGov.

I did some research and found that several of them are very likely to be copyvio. In particular, Girl Scouts USA expicitly claims copyright on the song "Brownie Smile Song"; Woody Guthrie's estate claims copyright on the song "Put Your Finger in the Air"; and Disney may own copyright to the "Johnny Appleseed" song from the 1948 movie Melody Time.

The results of my research to date is documented at User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/Day Camping for the Retarded. I do not think I will be able to get much further information.—Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: Because Day Camping is in source and PD, the ideal action is to censor the copyvio sections of the scan and replace the relevant lyrics with text removed. The question is therefore what sections need to be so censored. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt anyone will have time or interest to research this further, so I !vote to the following items:
 * I Want to be Friendly
 * If You're Happy and You Know It
 * Crocodile Song
 * My Hat Has Three Corners
 * Six Little Ducks
 * Where is Thumbkin?
 * Little Tommy Tinker
 * Brownie Smile Song
 * Hi, There!
 * Fido
 * The Wonder Ball
 * The Elephant Song
 * Ha-Ha, This a Way
 * Noontime is Here
 * Johnny Appleseed
 * Put Your Finger in the Air
 * Stodola Pumpa
 * On Top of Spaghetti
 * Kumbaya
 * Happy Trails
 * Note: all the other songs in this work are either confirmed PD, or this work is the earliest edition of them that I could find and therefore the same logic applies to them as was applied to Little Bunny Foo Foo. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * With regret, and somewhat dragging my feet, I have generated a new DjVu of this with the listed songs redacted. I call bullshit on the copyright claim for "Kumbaya", so I've left that in until the WMF receives a DMCA takedown request (or the community overrules me). The new file is at File:Day Camping for the Trainable and Severely Mentally Retarded (1970).djvu, and I've moved the index, pages, and mainspace artefacts over to that file. And the old PDF has been deleted on Commons. --Xover (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Could we move this to a subthread of #Little Bunny Foo Foo since it springs from there and the two impact on each other? --Xover (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I placed them separately because I think we have satisfactorily established that the song "Little Bunny Foo Foo" is in the public domain, regardless of the copyright status of the other works contained in that particular edition. We may have to censor Day Camping, or remove the scan backing, but "Little Bunny Foo Foo" can remain regardless. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But if we—for example—ended up deleting the scan, LBFF would no longer be scan-backed, and the above thread would no longer make sense for anyone reading the archives. But no big deal, I just thought it'd be "cleaner" to do it that way (partly because I've held off on closing the LBFF thread until we resolved all the issues surrounding this work). --Xover (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You have been doing more on this page than I; I have no objection to merging the discussions if you think best. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've merged them now. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

}}
 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Philosophical Writings: Translators modern unpublished translation, or possible gifted translation

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Index:Civil Rights Movement EL Text.pdf
2014 work that has been sitting tagged as having insufficient licensing information since 2016. The issue with the uploader at the time, and an alleged email from the author was provided on their talk page, but the OTRS procedure was not apparently followed. The work as such is clearly in copyright, both by the author and by other contributors (cover design etc.), so the question is whether we consider the (unverified) emailed statement on the contributor's talk page sufficient.

-- e-mail from John Duley to Willl Loew-Blosser 10/9/2014 "Will: Thanks so much for following up on this.  The answer to your two questions at the end of your email is yes--​ I would be pleased to have it widely circulated so do not intend to copyright it and would be willing to have it published as you suggest.  John"

-- e-mail to John Duley from Will Loew-Blosser 10/4/2014 "Hi John,

Leslie and I have were very pleased to learn so much of East Lansing history from your monograph. As we mentioned at breakfast I’m looking into putting your monograph entitled  "The Civil Rights Movement in East Lansing and Edgewood Village” onto wikipedia. There is a section of wikipedia called wikiSource that holds original works that may be then used in the encyclopedia articles as a source material.

See https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page

The first question is about copyright. WikiSource does not accept copyrighted works. You do not have a copyright notice on the title page but there is no explicit permission to reproduce or republish either.

My view is that iff we were to accept this as a valid  PD-author-release dedication, which we would then move to Commons, the chances of it avoiding deletion there would be slim. We need proper verification through OTRS for these cases, not least in order to ensure that the copyright owner understands all the consequences of PD dedication or free licensing. --Xover (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that the release into PD is clear, and the work could be tagged PD-author-release. I do not think CC0 can be used because the copyright holder did not explicitly link the work to the Creative Commons Zero deed and legal document. I would perhaps have accepted the notice on the talk page if the editor who posted the notice was themselves the copyright holder. However this is not the case and I am inclined to disallow it without proper OTRS. Is it at all possible to contact Duley directly? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In 2014 the situation was that so I hold that unlikely. And if no followup was forthcoming in 2016, I would tend to think that for internet people to now intrude on an old man with copyright questions would border on being immoral. At least my take is that we have to decide this issue based on the information we already have. --Xover (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I also understand it as a clear release into the public domain. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * @Jan Kameníček: If this document was tagged PD-author-release it would be eligible to be moved to Commons. Pragmatically, how do you rate its chances of surviving a deletion discussion there? --Xover (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have almost no experience with deletion discussions there, but if we are afraid that it will not survive there for some reasons, we can keep it here. Or, if we move it and they decide they do not want it, we can move it back here then. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The question was meant to probe the logic behind your conclusion, specifically in terms of the standard of evidence we apply. If we are confident that the available evidence is sufficient to conclude it has been released into the public domain, then we should also be confident that it will survive a deletion discussion at Commons. Since I am not confident that is the case absent confirmation through the OTRS process (and neither is Beleg Tâl based on their comment above), I wanted to check whether you deliberately wanted to apply a different (lower) standard of evidence or whether there was some confusion behind it.In practice, in these circumstances, if the consensus is to keep this as, I would not personally transfer this to Commons because I believe it would be against policy there and would be deleted. But another user very well might move it to Commons at any time, unless we used to mark it to keep local. But if we do that we are essentially saying that we do not believe this is properly licensed (i.e. that our  tag is a lie). This is unlike the typical situations where a file is PD in the US but not in its home country: in that case there is a genuine difference in policy between Commons and enWS. In the case at hand the policy is ostensibly the same on enWS and Commons, but we are (I suspect) applying a different standard of evidence.And if we are doing that then we should be very conscious and clear about that fact. It sets precedent for future such cases, and it impacts the risk to our reusers, so it is something we should approach with deliberation and eyes open. --Xover (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, neither our nor Commons discussions are legally binding, they are in fact both just lay opinions and it is no wonder that our lay opinion can be different from their lay opinion. As written above, I have almost zero experience with these discussions in Commons, but often heard others saying that they are sometimes trying to be more Catholic than the Pope... So by not moving it we are not saying that we are lying about the license, we are simply saying that our lay opinions about some border cases are different than theirs. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks! --Xover (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * yeah, i would keep it as PD-author-release, here. commons would view failure to follow OTRS as a deletion rationale. i.e. ; ; . Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 16:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * if no evidence of licensing.--Jusjih (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)