Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2020

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region documents

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Turandot

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Christiane Taubira Speech on the Same-Sex Marriage Bill

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Sino-Afghan boundary treaty

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Manifest of Réseau de Résistance du Québécois

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

La Frailocracia Filipina

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The Magic Mountain
Concerning File:The Magic Mountain.djvu and Index:The Magic Mountain.djvu, it seems that the publication dates printed are incorrect. (See Scriptorium for more on the general case.) The Magic Mountain says a 1924 original publication date (confirmed by Cliffnotes, de:w:The Magic Mountain, etc.) and a 1927 original English translation date (the earliest date I can find in HathiTrust). I can't imagine the 1919 date is correct, and given that, I see no reason to doubt the 1927 date for the translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Messrs. Martin Secker have fixed June 9 for the publication of "The Magic Mountain," by Thomas Mann, The English version is by Mrs. H. T. Lowe-Porter, translator of "Buddenbrooks." so definitely 1927, so definitely doctored. Very disappointing. We should be looking to alert archive.org to the problem. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This particular scan is clearly not a 1919 work, as it refers to 1943 works in the back matter.
 * A quick look at the dates in the front images shows the "19"s are not simple copy-pastes, but they do have similar defects, which could indicate tampering before the bitonal compression (or adjacent identical sorts have similar, innocent, printing defects, also possible). Also the second 19 on the title page is misaligned and a few pixels lower.
 * Volume 2 has no publication date shown (hmm), but the page after the title page says "first published June 1922". The month is right, per the above review. The second 2, however, while not a pixel perfect clone, has the same defects as its neighbour (look at the top right island of the 2s, there's a divot at the top right edge on both). Odd, indeed. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  23:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I have to wonder if the back of the title page was scanned, over-cropped and then stretched to fit the expected page size, or if the two-up scan for the version was misprocessed, because the translator's note looks squeezed. In any case, that would mean that the doctoring predated the scanning or carefully matched it. Maybe somebody working at the program had a couple works they uploaded deleted, and is quickly doctoring the books before scanning? With care, you could apply a white sticker over the original text before scanning and given the B&W nature of the scans, nobody could tell? You could even remove many stickers afterwards, and nobody could tell. Especially with that back matter, I can't see any value in making these type of changes historically, and currently it seems only important at the scanning to IA level, since both we've found move it before the 1923 line. (Of course, if it hadn't been for the copyright issues, I wouldn't have noticed this one, so tiny biased sample.) Poirot Investigates (the other book I found with a false date) is missing the back third (cared enough to doctor the date, but not upload the whole book?!?) and Poirot Investigates (Manipuri) is a scan from the same library of a (2004? 2008) modern translation, so, it's just weird.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * That one certainly looks like the date has been doctored. The last "1" in "1921" is very, very similar to the first one (almost pixel perfect), and it is misaligned vertically. So it looks like a (sloppy) clone-tool job at some point in the process prior to final compression to me.
 * And another one: Lord Edgware Dies. Published 1933, this scan states the original edition is 1923, and the "2" is misaligned. This is also a later reproduction, not the 19(3)3 edition, as is clear by the stylised title which is unlikely in a 30s printing. Moreover Berkeley Books was founded in 1955 - I think this is the 1984 edition. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  11:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Magic Mountain scan claims to have been published by Secker & Warburg in London in 1919. Martin Secker may indeed have published The Magic Mountain at some point (the 1927 English first edition was presumably his), but Secker & Warburg was not formed until 1935 when Secker went broke and was bought up by Fredric Warburg. They now operate as Harvill Secker. No book printed prior to 1935 should have "Secker & Warburg" (but it may occur in bibliographic databases for various reasons). --Xover (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe reaching, but this 1946 edition looks like it might be the undoctored source? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * i am finding a renewal here page 714 1955 but no second renewal, only a RE0000057751 "The Making of Magic mountain. By Thomas Mann & Helen T. Lowe-Porter." in Atlantic monthly of 1953 renewed in 1980. -- Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 00:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * What do you mean second renewal? Works got a 28-year starting term, then an (eventually) 67-year renewal term. They didn't get a second renewal, and this didn't need one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I've previously noticed that in.ernet.dli / Digital Library of India has a fundamentally shoddy relationship with copyright, so I always check files from there extra well. However, outright forging title pages etc. is a whole other level of unreliability, not just in terms of copyright, but in terms of the integrity of the work, the associated bibliographic data, and, ultimately, literary history. This offends me. And it raises the question…Can we trust anything DLI has touched?Even if you don't care about copyright violations, the outright forgery on display here means the trustworthiness of their scans (much less the associated bibliographic data) can no longer be presumed. Commons has ~1200 files tagged with in.ernet.dli alone (not all files from there are so tagged), and these all now need checking (to varying levels of detail). I have no idea how we actually verify ~1200 files when we can no longer trust even the scan to reflect reality. --Xover (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you tried sending DLI a letter of concern about issues like this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * DLI was certinaly aware some issues back in 2017- (https://web.archive.org/web/20170909022047/http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Index:Zofia Kossak - The Convenant.djvu, File:Zofia Kossak - The Convenant.djvu. The scan claims the book was published by Allan Wingate in 1911. Allan Wingate was founded in 1944. The author, Zofia Kossak-Szczucka was born in 1889—so 22 in 1911—and most her other works started to appear in the 1930s (she was a Polish WWII resistance fighter). Which jives well with the actual publication date for this work: 1951. Also a DLI scan. --Xover (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You may wish to be aware of ↑. --Xover (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)''
 * There was also Roy 1951 edition of "The Convenant" (I have no access to it to check whether there was a copyright notice there), but even if there was a copyright notice in this edition, the copyright for this book was not renewed. Polish edition ("Przymierze") was published a year later (likely due to long publishing procedure in Poland that time), so the English one is the first edition. I do not think there is a copyright problem with this particular book and publishing date is not fake. However, the scans are poor and likely not complete, so I will not worry if you decide to delete this book. Ankry (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that I am not so much concerned with its copyright status, as the fact that it has been doctored to appear as if it was published in 1911, 40 years before its actual publication date. Not to mention a publisher which did not exist at the time of the claimed publication.But on initial assessment, if this was first published in the UK in 1951, the term is pma. 70; meaning it is in copyright in the UK until 1968 + 70 years = 2038. That would make it in copyright in the source country on the UK's URAA date (1996), and so in copyright in the US until 1951 + 95 years = 2046. The situation in Poland is similar to the UK (pma. 70). (PS. Isn't it The Covenant, not The Covenant? I think the extra n was just a typo by the uploader at IA, but I'm not familiar with the work so I may be wrong.) --Xover (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume that it was published simultaneously in UK and US as the publisher declares on p. 4 (the 1911 date there is clearly fake) and on the title page. If you know, how to verify / reject this, let me know. Same info can be found in library records. Ankry (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's sort of my point… we can't trust anything on that page because it has unquestionably been forged. We'll need external verification to determine its actual copyright status. The above assessment was based solely on your assertion that it was first published in the UK: if it was actually published simultaneously / within 30 days in the US the whole assessment changes. --Xover (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is why I verified this in library catalogues: Polish National Library has two 1951 English editions of this book: Wingate's (London & New York) and Roy's (New York) (unsure in the links are permanent; permanent linking directly to library catalogue is not possible). And the books are definitely not PD in Poland and UK. But IMO, they do not fall under URAA due to being US publications (with or without copyright notice). Ankry (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Wingate does not appear to have been published in the US (they just had offices there). The Roy edition looks to be the US publication, presumably in some kind of partnership with Wingate. UK newspapers review (and print ads for) the Wingate edition from January, but US newspapers begin reviewing the Roy edition in June. There are some mentions in rural US newspapers in March, but these appear to be talking about the UK edition. From the evidence, then, it does not appear this work was published in the US within 30 days. --Xover (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, so I'll delete the file on Commond due to URAA. Thanks for investigation. Please delete the index and pages. Ankry (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is tagged as no copyright notice, which might or might not be true. But note that The Magic Mountain has a blank space where a later edition has a copyright notice. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the copyright notices have been erased. Lots of DLI scans have no copyright notice at all, which I find somewhat convenient, since that's not an especially common oversight. For example, Presidential Agent (pub. 1944) does not have any copyright line on the reverse of the title page, but the very similarly typeset One Clear Call (pub. 1948) by the same publisher does. I doubt a publisher would neglect this line, when the previous year (1943) [Wide is the Gate] had at least an "All rights reserved". However, I can't immediately find a smoking gun of an alternative scan of a DLI book that shows a disparity. The closest I can find is this and this, where one page is totally blank, which is not quite as good as finding a page with only part of it missing. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  21:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The editions of "The Return Of Lanny Budd" you pointed out above are UK editions and as non-US editions they likely have no copyright notice. Ankry (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * had similar problems a few years back with a P.G. Wodehouse novel (Right Ho, Jeeves) uploaded from DLI that was doctored to appear as published in 1922, but was really a 1934 publication (per hard-copy resources in my library). I speedied it on 7 June 2015 as a copyvio. (Brief conversation here.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: Prosfilaes (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Allahu Akbar

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Minsk agreements

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Fumifugium: or, the Inconveniencie of the Aer and Smoake of London/Note

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders fireside chat - 14 March 2020

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (and any other individual parts)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Istanbul Convention and other CoE treaties

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Jamiatul saadat (collector of felicities)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The Doon School Founder's Day address, 1992

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin's speech at the 1940 military council about the Finnish War

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

William Barr Memo to Department of Justice

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Memorandum on implementation of the 2005 China-WHO Taiwan MOU

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Red Army Faction dissolution notice

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Tafsir Ibn Kathir

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Diagnosis and Treatment Protocol for Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia (Trial Version 7)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Index:The Gates of Morning - Henry De Vere Stacpoole.pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Peter Pan, or The Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up (1904)
{{closed|Deleted as copyvio. Simultaneously published in the UK and US with copyright notice, and will be in copyright in the US until 1 January 2024 du to renewal R171921 dated 4 June 1956.|text=

This is the original stage play by J. M. Barrie, the text of which appears to have been copied and pasted from Project Gutenberg Australia. While the play premiered in 1904, and Barrie used it as the basis for his 1911 novel Peter and Wendy, the script did not appear in print until 1928; therefore, despite the Wikisource page’s title, we must consider 1928 to be the work’s publication date.

I’ve examined (to the best of my ability—I'm not a lawyer) the table linked to at the top of this page from the Cornell Library, and I have concluded that the play’s U.S. copyright term expires 95 years after its publication date—i.e., not until 1928 + 95 = 2023. My reasoning is as follows:


 * The section of the Cornell table "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad" explores five different scenarios for publication dates from 1925 through 1977.
 * The first one of these listed cannot apply to this scenario because the work was not in the public domain in its source country (the United Kingdom) on 1 January 1996.
 * Of the other four, three result in a copyright term ending 95 years after the publication date, and thus support my conclusion.
 * The remaining scenario, which applies only if the work was published in the U.S. less than 30 days after publication abroad, requires one to refer to the section of the table for works published in the U.S. This section, in turn, includes three more scenarios that apply to works published in 1928:
 * If the work was published in the U.S. without a copyright notice, then the work is in the public domain.
 * If the work was published in the U.S. with a copyright notice, but the copyright was not renewed, then the work is in the public domain.
 * If the work was published in the U.S. with a copyright notice and the copyright was renewed, then the copyright term ends 95 years after the publication date.

Therefore, the only way the play could be in the public domain is if it was published in the U.S. less than 30 days after being published in the U.K., and the U.S. publication either (a) did not include a copyright notice, or (b) included a copyright notice but did not have its copyright renewed. The copyright holder, Great Ormond Street Hospital, alleges that the copyright was indeed renewed, eliminating (b) and implying that (a) is impossible. As all other scenarios result in a copyright term of publication + 95 years, the play should not remain on Wikisource, absent any evidence contrary to GOSH’s allegation. {{unsigned2|11:34, 15 June 2020‎|Skiasaurus}}

Edit: {{ping|Inductiveload|p=}} rightly points out below that GOSH actually does not allege that the copyright was renewed, but rather that it was extended by the Copyright Term Extension Act. This makes the analysis slightly different (see Inductiveload's comment for details), but the ultimate conclusion—that the work should be deleted—remains the same. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 01:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * {{vd}} I agree with the analysis, except for the last bit. GOSH doesn't allege there was a renewal, it asserts it was extended by the Sonny Bono Act to 95 years. If the work was indeed not published in the US within 30 days, that is accurate. If it turned out that the work was published in the US within 30 days, a lack of notice or subsequent renewal would make it PD in the US, counter to GOSH's statement. But I don't think it was (and even if I did think so, I have to prove it): they're probably right.
 * Since there's only a couple of years left on it, there's a PG version and our version doesn't add value to that, I lean "delete, and come back to it in 2023, ideally with a scan". Inductiveload— talk/contribs  12:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * {{comment}} {{vk}} {{vd}} {{smaller|[ Changed to delete based on TE(æ)A,ea.'s discovery of a renewal below. ]}} Hang on. The script was published in New York in 1928 by Charles Scribner's Sons. A lot of US newspapers run the same profile on Barrie in March/April (PR before the publication?), and the play is produced in New York in November/December (presumably based on the US publication of the script). When the script was published, Barrie already had a US agent representing him for licensing performance rights: Charles Frohman's company (run by his brother and nephew I think), and Frohman had produced Peter Pan both in the UK and US (before his death in 1915).{{parabr}}Do we know the date on which the script was published in the UK? If it was any time after January/February 1928 the likelihood is high that it was simultaneously published in the US. In fact, it is not unlikely the US publication actually predates the UK one!{{parabr}}The US publication has a copyright notice, but I did not find any renewal in the Stanford database, so it would have expired after 28 years (1956-ish). --Xover (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How does one go about showing this with a high enough level of confidence (and, actually, what is the required level of confidence)? What would be your approach to unearthing this information? Checking newspaper archives for book reviews would at least give a "no later than" date. Sadly, British newspapers are a bit tricky to search without a subscription, institutional access or physical library access. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  08:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * {{re|Inductiveload}} Absent conclusive evidence the standard is whatever level makes each of us comfortable that we're not subjecting ourselves, our contributors, or our reusers to unacceptable liability. To improve our confidence we need to look for evidence that gives or points to a publication date for the two editions; the most likely place to find that is newspapers, who often list "books received" (books publishers have sent them hoping for a review, typically a short time prior to publication), ads from publishers for new publications (typically very close to actual publication date), and actual reviews of books (typically shortly before or shortly after publication). This is not a book that is likely to have been actually reviewed in any mainstream media, but it is not unlikely that there will be other kinds of notice or coverage. Unfortunately my subscription to the relevant services seems to have expired so I'm unable to research that properly just now. --Xover (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Xover}} The most interesting things to me about your comment are the second sentence ("The script was published…") and your mention of a copyright notice; but I’m not sure what your source(s) is/are for that information—can you share?


 * Unfortunately, the conclusion you've drawn (that "it is not unlikely the US publication predates the UK one") is, so far at least, otherwise based on evidence that is circumstantial at best:


 * We can surmise, but we don't really know that the newspaper profiles actually had the purpose that you ascribe to them.
 * The fact that there was a U.S. production doesn’t necessarily mean that the play must have been published by then—the producers could have been given or lent copies of the script for their cast and crew when they contracted for the performance rights.
 * I can't find any evidence that Frohman’s company was his licensing agent, but even if they were, it’s irrelevant to the play’s publication history; see previous point.


 * So none of that is usable to make assumptions about the precise U.S. publication date or about its relationship to that in the U.K.


 * Finally, your last paragraph is true if, and only if, the play was published in the U.S. before or ≤ 30 days after it was published in the U.K.; otherwise, it is considered a foreign work and would have had its copyright restored in 1996, with its term lasting until 2023. As I've shown, we don't have any real evidence yet to suggest that the necessary relationship exists between the two dates in order for your last paragraph to be correct. Furthermore, while I concede that it's possible that GOSH made their allegation in bad faith specifically to deter the play's free distribution in the U.S., I submit that we ought to be assuming good faith on their part (even though Wikisource doesn't have that guideline/policy like many other Wikimedia projects do), for two primary reasons: 1) they're a children's hospital, and not a profit-driven organization, and 2) as {{ping|Inductiveload|p=}} notes in their {{x-smaller|(unsure of pronouns)}} reply to your comment, it would be very difficult to show otherwise with a high enough degree of confidence. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 23:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * {{re|Skiasaurus}} {{tqi|I’m not sure what your source(s) is/are for that information—can you share?|q=y}} Sure. My source is the actual edition, which is listed in standard bibliographic databases. It gives the publisher, location, year of publication, and contains a notice that Frohman is the agent for performance licensing.{{parabr}}{{tqi|… none of that is usable to make assumptions about the … publication date [relative] to that in the U.K.|q=y}} Of course it is. Absent specific evidence that contradicts it, it is at least as usable as the evidence suggesting the opposite (which amounts to a bare-faced assertion by a third party with a commercial interest in that particular conclusion).{{parabr}}{{tqi|… w:WP:AGF …|q=y}} WP:AGF is a behavioural guideline for editors on Wikipedia. It in no way shape or form applies to GOSH, even on Wikipedia. Guidelines and policies that would be more relevant are w:WP:NPOV and w:WP:RS: we don't trust an entity to be neutral about issues affecting themselves, and especially not if they have a vested interest in a particular slant or outcome (GOSH is, in this sense, a primary source). Especially when it comes to copyright we do not trust any entity's bare-faced assertion that a particular work is covered by a copyright that they own absent evidence supporting the assertion: bad-faith actors regularly try to use DMCA and copyright claims to suppress information they do not like on Wikipedia (and other sites; Youtube videos falling under fair use exemptions is a prominent example), and on Wikisource we regularly find predatory publishers squatting on public domain works (publish a cheap ebook of a PD work, use that to claim copyright on the original in semi-automated systems like GBooks).{{parabr}}What we have here is a situation where GOSH's claims about the UK copyright are plausible on their own, and is backed by a ton of reliable evidence (a separate bill in parliament weighs kinda heavily there ;D), but their claim regarding US copyright is plausible on its own only absent indication of a US publication. The second we have evidence for that we can no longer take their assertions at face value: they have a vested interest in a particular outcome; have a vested interest in not finding any US publication (which, again, is easily findable within seconds in standard databases); and have a vested interest in a particular interpretation of the available evidence. That's not to say their position is necessarily wrong, but it does mean we cannot simply accept their assertions and have to both do our own research and weigh the evidence for ourselves.{{parabr}}Since you appear interested in this particular work, you can help by researching the actual UK publication date. If UK publication is indisputably in January or early February, the evidence so far makes it implausible that there was a concurrent US publication. If UK publication was after October then it is most likely the US publication preceded the UK one. Between those two time frames it'd be a balance of the evidence call unless we can pin down both publication dates to a greater degree of certainty. --Xover (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, some more research on this…{{parabr}}Towards the end of September, US newspapers report that Barrie has approved plans to publish the play (the same story is printed in multiple newspapers and includes promotional language, so these are pretty clearly advance publicity by Scribner). By November 3 it is being listed as either for sale or as "books received" in Indianapolis (given it was published in New York, this then looks like the terminus ante quem). By November 10 it's listed in Cincinnati. On November 18 it gets a notice (review) in Dayton, Ohio.{{parabr}}In the UK, I find the first mention of a plan to publish it on August 30 (The Guardian). On October 14 Hodder & Stoughton took out an ad in The Observer to announce that they will be publishing it ("for immediate publication", but clearly not yet actually published). On October 26, The Guardian runs a story that seems to be saying they are anxious to get their hands on it (their angle is that it's taken so long for Barrie to permit publication). And on October 25 it is listed as either for sale or as "books received".{{parabr}}Based on this I would say the most plausible timing is that both the US edition by Charles Scribner's Sons and the UK edition by Hodder & Stoughton were published around the end of October or beginning of November. The earliest plausible UK date is October 14 (when Hodder & Stoughton ran the ad in The Observer), and the latest plausible US date is November 3 (the listing in Indianapolis), and within this interval it is impossible for the US edition to have been published more than 30 days after the UK edition.{{parabr}}I wouldn't want to go to court based on this research alone, but in terms of Wikisource policy and liability for our contributors and reusers, I am more than sufficiently satisfied that this work (including the author's introduction, newly added for this edition) was either first published in the US or published in the US within 30 days of first publication. Unless a more thorough search turns up a renewal somewhere around 1955–1957 (I didn't find one, but I only did a quick search), this work is {{tlx|PD-US-no-renewal}}. --Xover (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

BARRIE, JAMES MATTHEW. Peter Pan; or, The boy who would not grow up. © 26Oct28; D85173. Lady Cynthia Asquith (E), Peter Llewlyn Davies (E), & Barclay's    Bank, Ltd. (E); 4Jun56; R171921. {{unsigned|01:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)|TE(æ)A,ea.}}
 * Speedy delete: This page indicates that the copyright was renewed; as it was a play, the Stanford database would not list it. The text is as follows:
 * {{re|TE(æ)A,ea.}} Thanks for doing the research on this! So it seems the "good" news (fsvo) is that my research on the dates wasn't wrong: based on the original registration date (© 26Oct28; D85173) it was published ultimo October—primo November. The bad, of course, being that those dates do not matter: this renewal, so far as I can determine, makes it clear that Peter Pan (the play script) is covered by US copyright for 95 years from the end of the year it was published. That is, the copyright will last until the end of 1928 + 95 years = 2023 and it will not enter the public domain in the US until 1 January 2024. --Xover (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Other (possibly interesting) information: the following are all renewals of post-1924 plays by Barrie (up to and including 1977):
 * Shall we join the ladies? (1928)
 * Peter Pan; or, The boy who would not grow up (1928)
 * The Boy David, a play in three acts (1938)
 * The Boy David; a play in three acts (1948)

Peter and Wendy
As an offshoot of the above, our copy of Peter and Wendy - Margaret Ogilvy is marked PD-nonUK. I am not sure that's right - it was published (in the US) in 1911 and Barrie died 1937, so this isn't this an easy 1923/70 year rule combo? The play has copyright wrinkles due to not being published for a long time, but isn't "Peter and Wendy" just a book? There's no indication about why that template is used.
 * OK, so I just can't read. GOSH's statement said "in Europe", but the CDPA applies in the UK (which might have been in Europe when the statement was written, but I guess not any more, so the statement is accurate at last!). I'll make a better note to explain this. Inductiveload— talk/contribs   13:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Maybe we should change PD-nonUK so it specifically refers to special non-copyright regulation and omits any "PD elsewhere" language. Maybe generalise it so it could be used for Ka Mate and other such restrictions too. Neither the Peter Pan restrictions, nor those for the Book of Common Prayer and King James Bible, are actually copyright qua copyright; they are extra monopolies that exist beyond copyright. The Haka Ka Mate Attribution Act 2014 is similar (non-copyright restriction), and several countries have non-copyright restrictions on national symbols, coats of arms, or traditional cultural expressions. --Xover (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

}}
 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The Professor's Teddy Bear

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Index:Japan-Korea GSOMIA (English Text).pdf and file and transclusion

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Ave Crux Alba

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Pfc. Gibson Comes Home

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Plays

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Index:The correct pronunciation of Latin according to Roman usage.djvu and file at Commons

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Arizona Proposition 302

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Constitution of the Hungarian People's Republic (1949)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

IMPORTANT! Foreigners in China during the epidemic must abide by the following

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Guerilla Open Access Manifesto

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The Trial of Joan of Arc: being the verbatim report of the proceedings from the Orleans manuscript

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sinews of Peace

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Anthem (Rand)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hossbach Memorandum

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Translation rights

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

My Urals and Round the Ai river I went

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The Cats and The Conscript

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Decision upon the request for recusal of a judge, 1973-10-08

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Index:Kirk Presidential Address 1949.pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Translation:Fatherland Front Bulgaria for Macedonia

 * This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Magna Charta Universitatum

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Fireflies

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

2 Index - Traffic Signs Manual VOlume 8 Parts 1 and 2

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Modern Czech Poetry

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Copyright of statutes in France

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Lehrer's translations where original would be under copyright

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Oration on the Dignity of Man

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The Father Speaks to His Children

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Romances of Chivalry on Greek Soil

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Index:Tumors of the pituitary gland.djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Index:Login USENIX Newsletter feb1983.djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Christmas Blessings

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Index:Constitution of India, As on 09 September 2020.pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)