Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2021

Summer (Abay) and Rysbekova

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

License for Trump-Raffensperger Call Transcript

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Revolutionary Nudism

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

On Spiritual Warfare

 * This section was archived on a request by: Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Governor's Speech at Farewell Ceremony of Hong Kong Handover 1997

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

What is an Anarchist?

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

A Life

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Nature articles

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Anthem of antioquia

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Caracas Commitment

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

People's Daily Editorials

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Remarks by President Biden in a CNN Town Hall with Anderson Cooper deleted

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The Early Christian Attitude To War/foreword

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Remarks by John McCain at the 1988 Republican National Convention

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry press statement of April 23, 2014

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Dead Sea scrolls/11Q13

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Dead Sea scrolls/4Q158

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Dead Sea scrolls from Scrolls from the Dead Sea

 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

2020 Republican National Convention/Ivanka Trump&

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Works by Saša Milivojev

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Translation:The Man Who Planted Trees

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Mer Hayrenik

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Nocturnal (Silva)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The Last Sermon of Muhammad by Shia Accounts

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thirty-Six Strategies

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Treaty of Kars

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Informatics metrics and measures for a smart public health systems approach: Information science perspective

 * This section was archived on a request by: Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Index:Modern French Course Part 1.djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  08:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Index:The Books of Chronicles (1916).djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science/Volume 270/The Engineering of Consent

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Errors Made in Jutland Battle

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Jakob Jakobsen portrait

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Landmark Education suffers humiliating legal defeat in New Jersey Federal Court

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Mind, Character and Personality (1977)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Works by Ellen G. White

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Our current Gutenberg-sourced version of Winesburg, Ohio

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

1933 unregistered dual US/UK published work.

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Works of ICJ

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

How Today’s College Students Use Wikipedia for Course–related Research

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The Estate of Marriage

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The Khōn

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Ponniyin Selvan

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Old Mrs Chundle (Hardy)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Vincent Van Gogh

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Scan localization requests
{{closed|All requested scans copied locally.|text= {{ping|Languageseeker}} You uploaded all but one of the below works. Please pay attention to copyright status before uploading: all four of these works are wholly or partially by UK authors with no evidence of first or concurrent publication in the US. This means they are still in copyright in the UK, even if their US copyright has expired. Since Commons requires uploads to be in the public domain in both the US and the country of origin, these will be deleted there eventually. Works that comply with the enWS copyright policy but not the Commons policy should be uploaded locally.{{pbr}}{{re|ShakespeareFan00}} There's no special magic for moving files from Commons to here: just download the file from Commons, upload it here, add the description page from Commons, tidy up any template differences, and add {{tlx|do not move to Commons}}. --Xover (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I am UK based, so me uploading them locally would potentially be a copyright issue for me. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If outside the USA, better ask here first.--Jusjih (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Index:One Increasing Purpose.pdf
Work is by Arthur Stuart-Menteth Hutchinson (1879–1971). It is not PD-UK, and so the scans should be locally hosted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ Xover (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Index:Rebels and reformers (1919).djvu
Contains contributions from Dorothea Ponsonby (1876–1963) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ Xover (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Index:The war history of the 1st-4th Battalion, the Loyal North Lancashire Regiment, now the Loyal Regiment (North Lancashire), 1914-1918 (IA warhistoryof1st400grea).pdf
Localisation requested as specfic UK authors could not be identified on a quick scan of the works initial pages. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ Xover (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Index:The way of Martha and the way of Mary (1915).djvu
Work by British Author - Stephen Graham (1884–1975), so not PD-UK. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ Xover (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Index:When we were very young.pdf
London publication, Author Alan Alexander Milne (1882–1956) - Not PD-UK ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ Xover (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Index:The ABC of Relativity.djvu

 * London edition, of a work by Author:Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872–1970), not PD-UK ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Xover (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Xover (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Index:Pyrotechnics the history and art of firework making (1922).djvu

 * Work by British Author who died in 1956 - Not PD-UK. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Xover (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Index:Machine-gun tactics (IA machineguntactic00appl).pdf
}}
 * Work by british authour who died in 1956 - Not PD-UK and this appears to be a London published edition ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Xover (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Index:The principle of relativity (1920).djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Gates of Empire

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Georgia versus Russia (Hague court application, 2008)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

ISN 043 -- statement of 2006/10/23

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Index:The Mesnevī (Volume 2).pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The Ghost of Camp Colorado

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The Letters (Wharton)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The French Declaration of War against Austria (1792)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The Edmeston Local/Question Over Famous Run Is Finally Solved and The Edmeston Local/Scout's Run to Warn Of Peril To Be Marked

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Tagore's Letters to M. K. Gandhi

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Education for Life presentation by His Excellency Mr.Sukavich Rangsitpol

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Swift's Epitaph

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Summer Morn

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Statutory Resolution CM/Res(2007)6

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Muhammad's letters

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

National Anthem of the Soviet Union

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Russian Federation. Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Resolution of the Information Bureau Concerning the Communist Party of Yugoslavia

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Report of Psychiatric Assessment of José Padilla

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

A Program for Monetary Reform

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Proclamation of Cuban transfer of duties 2006

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The Price of Greatness is Responsibility

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Note that I'm willing to reopen this discussion in 2038, but I don't think it's clear for us until then.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Precision

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Peggy Guggenheim, New York, N.Y. letter to Betty Parsons, New York, N.Y., 1947 May 5

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Ormurin Langi

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Nigeria We Hail Thee

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The Nazi's Aim Is Slavery

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I Am a Cat

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

4Q174 and 4Q521

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Aiaaira

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

A Ballad of Abbreviations

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Behold, a rose of Judah

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Bogdan Gasiński's letter to the District Prosecutor's Office in Olsztyn

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Bush and Blair conversation

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

May Declaration

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Waldorf public school trial transcript

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Psychology of Religion

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Un Canadien errant (Gibbon)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's Speech to the Workers of Berlin (10 December 1940)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Appeal of the Council of People's Commissars to the Muslims of Russia and the East

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Ariane 501 Inquiry Board report

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

His Excellency Mr. Somchai Wongsawat Education Policy 2008-2022

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The Ballad of Long Ben

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Manual for Revolutionary Leaders

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Constitution of the Communist Party of China (2017)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The Poor People

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Paripatal

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Translation:Order of the Supreme Commander on May 9, 1945, No. 369

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The Mistakes of Jesus

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Loyalty (Colby)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Letter to Chrestus of Syracuse

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (2020)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Strike Against War (1916)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The Inevitable Revolution

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Index:Down And Out In Paris And London (IA DownAndOutInParisAndLondonGeorgeOrwell1933).pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Undelete Luceafărul

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Václav Havel's 1990 speech in Congress

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Khodynka

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Sir Charles Grandison

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Undelete Dettmer v. Landon (799 F.2d 929)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Index:Calends of Cairo.pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Majulah Singapura.pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

USA publication, no copyright notice

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Whether One May Flee from a Deadly Plague

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yogyakarta Principles

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Reject the Revisionist Theses of the XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Anti-Marxist Stand of Krushchev's Group! Uphold Marxism-Leninism!

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

L. N. Tolstoy and the Modern Labour Movement

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Epistle to the Son of the Wolf

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Translation:Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice No. 6083/2546/Syllabus

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

My Homeland

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Decision of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party Concerning the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The Beautifull Cassandra

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Maurice, or The Fisher's Cot

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:Thecambridgeancienthistoryvol1.djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Page:Afleetinbeing.djvu/1

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:Multilevel algorithms for nonlinear optimization.djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes.pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:The Autobiography of a Catholic Anarchist.pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding copyright

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:Pathway to God in Hindi Literature.pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

An American dilemma

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Crisis of the Mind

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The Night Before Christmas, illustrated, no copyright notice

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

UK legislation volumes...

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:Plato's Theory of Knowledge (Cornford, 1915).pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:Plato, with an English translation (vol 5 of 12) (Lamb, 1925).pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The State and Revolution (marxists.org)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Undelete Translation:The man who planted trees

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding copyrightability of editorial changes in new edition of presumably public-domain work

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The Case of Charles Dexter Ward - copyright of 1971 edition

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Das Kapital Volume Three

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in Science

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:Sänger - Rocket flight engineering.pdf

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Index:Emma Goldman - The Social Significance of the Modern Drama - 1914.djvu

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Winnie the Pooh, Illustrated by E. H. Sheppard

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The Net of Faith

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Kerry vs. Pickens

 * Senator John Kerry's letter to T. Boone Pickens in acceptance of the Swift Boat challenge
 * Senator John Kerry's letter of reply to T. Boone Picken's letter

These are by a sitting Senator, but the whole swiftboat thing with Pickens and the SBVT are hardly obvious parts of his official duties. Kerry was at this time a candidate for the Democratic nomination (he hadn't yet dropped out and endorsed Obama), and the SBVT attacks targeted Kerry personally, so these are pretty obviously him acting as a candidate and not a Senator.

On the other hand, we've traditionally given waaaay wide latitude to what we consider to fall within the scope of a Senator's duties (way too much, and I think we should tighten that up going forward).

In this specific case I'd be comfortable with deleting under the former rationale, or tagging them as under the latter, but I'd like to hear where the community sits on this. Xover (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd definitely agree that these letters were not within (or even remotely discussing) his official duties... they are completely irrelevant to, and don't even discuss the topic of, any legislation that was under consideration at the time. The SBVT thing was purely political theatre, on both sides. Given that I see no way in which these letters would be any different if Kerry had been a candidate who was not in office at the time, it seems obvious that it's not exempt. Jarnsax (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The whole SBVT thing was asking about his service in Vietnam which was part of his official duties as a Navy Officer. If it were written at the time as an officer it would count no? If he were an admiral coming up for senate confirmation would we reach the same conclusion it wasn't part of his official duties? MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The exemption is specifically for "works of the United States Government...prepared by an officer or employee...as part of his official duties." This implies a 'work for hire' (it's a corporate author), so we can also pull in "a work prepared as an employee as part of his employment."
 * Kerry was no longer a serving officer at the time, and thus had no "official duty" to comment about his previous service. While he was still serving, the work would still have to be explicitly "part of his official duties," so something that he was actually obligated to prepare.
 * An officer seeking confirmation from, or testifying before, Congress, would do so only under direction from the Commander in Chief, so it's part of their duty. As the law currently stands (getting into untested ground a bit, here, but as it seems to stand in the US) an Officer of the United States (and thus part of the Executive Branch) they cannot be compelled by the Legislative to testify when it relates to their official duties, as when carrying out those duties they are using "a portion of the Sovereign Power of the United States" delegated to them by the President and are thus eligible for qualified immunity from contempt of Congress for refusal to testify.
 * There is no exemption under statute law for works of Members of Congress.. they are neither officers nor employees of the United States Government (specifically prohibited from being so by the Ineligibility Clause of the US Constitution)
 * The relevant exemption for Congress is instead from the common law, is for "edicts of government, broadly construed" and dates back to an 1830s court case, but was addressed quite recently by the Supreme Court
 * The definition of "law" in this case in extremely broad (this is a principle of the common, not statute law).... "non-statute" materials prepared by Members in the course of drafting legislation, that could be used by judges to construct the meaning and sense of Congress behind the words actually enacted, are "law" in the sense intended, as is the 'administrative law' in the Code of Federal Regulations. The concept is that "actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" - essentially that you have to be able to know what the law is to commit a crime. Jarnsax (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My main question was thinking through this in a more rigorous way given that it all seemed a bit wishy-washy. My inclination was that it didn't apply and I was pushing to nail down why it doesn't apply. For example, that is not for legislators. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I kinda took it as a request to try to really explain the reasoning behind it... it's why the Constitution starts "We the People" though we know what specific people actually wrote it: because our representatives, when acting as the legislative, are essentially us, we (as a people) are the collective authors of the works it creates, that we give our implicit consent to when electing congresscritters. WE are the swamp, lol. Jarnsax (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Jarnsax: “There is no exemption under statute law for works of Members of Congress”—actually, that’s not true. “Copyright protection under the Copyright Act is not available for ‘any work of the United States Government.’ … This includes works created by the President; Congress; the federal judiciary; federal departments, agencies, boards, bureaus, or commissions; or any other officer or employee of the U.S. federal government while acting within the course of his or her official duties.” (From the Compendium.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @TE(æ)A,ea. You're arguing with the Supreme Court (see quote above, or look up the case). What you are missing is that Congressmen are not Officers (or employees) of the Unites States Government. First sentence of Officer of the United States... "a functionary of the executive or judicial branches of the federal government of the United States..." ...as I mentioned above, the Ineligibility Clause... "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." They are not "employees" because they are not hired or fired, it's an elective office not a 'job'. The reasoning goes way off into too much depth for here, but 'law' is ineligible for copyright due to a lack of authorship as defined by the Copyright Act. In the specific case, the Georgia Legislature is denied copyright in 'non binding annotations' that were published along with the actual statute. Jarnsax (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Jarnsax: This work was published after Public.Resource.Org was decided; it references that case in the paragraph I quoted. Here is the full quote:
 * “[T]he bar on copyright protection for federal works … applies to works created by all federal ‘officer[s] or employee[s],’ without regard for the nature of their position or scope of their authority.” Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1498, 1509–10 (2020). This includes works created by the President; Congress; the federal judiciary; federal departments, agencies, boards, bureaus, or commissions; or any other officer or employee of the U.S. federal government while acting within the course of his or her official duties. It also includes works prepared by an officer or employee of the government of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the organized territories under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
 * You can read the rest here (p. 36, § 313.6(C)(1)). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @TE(æ)A,ea. Now read the very next section of the Compendium regarding government edicts, 313.6(C)(2). It tells you the same thing I just did. Jarnsax (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To explain a bit more, when it mentions "Congress" in (C)(1) it is referring to Officers and employees of the legislative branch (i.e. Congress) like the Architect of the Capitol, who are not Members of COngress and have no legislative authority. Jarnsax (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Since this is probably going to go here anyhow, actual "laws" (passed by both houses, and signed by the president) are edicts of Government, as are "rules" (i.e. administrative law) written by agencies with rulemaking authority delegated by statute (like the EPA). That they are not copyrightable is a "principle", it's not written in the statutes, it's common law (England does copyright laws, but they actually passed a law post-revolution to make it that way). Congress can also (and does) create "works of the United States Government" when they do things like pass a simple resolution in the House to express condolences after a former member dies, and those are not copyrightable under (C)(1), but they are also not legislation. Jarnsax (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Jarnsax: This discussion is interesting, and can have far-reaching consequences for how we treat works by congressmen on the project. I have always been unclear on what exactly the copyright situation for these are.The executive branch are fairly clear as, and the judiciary are usually fairly clear as . And Congress as such is normally also producing works that fall under EdictGov, especially after PRO.But we get a lot of works by individual congressmen that can be anything from speeches on the floor, to press releases, speeches to the electorate, town halls and Q&A sessions with constituents. We have historically given wide latitude to keeping these under the theory that PD-USGov was in effect, and a congressman's "official duties" includes various kinds of schmoozing with constituents. But if there is no PD-USGov exemption for congressmen, that means only PD-EdictGov controls the issue; and EdictGov (even after PRO) will only apply in those narrow circumstances where whatever work somehow bears on a law or other edict of the government. That would eliminate a wide swathe of texts that we currently host.In other words, this is an issue I believe it is worthwhile spending some time and effort to get right. Xover (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Xover Yeah, "employees" is obvious, and it's fairly easy to define an "Officer of the United States"... nominated by President, confirmed by Senate, has a physical paper commission, swears an oath to the Constitution.
 * What's kind of odd is the case to watch right now isn't actually a copyright case, but probably will go towards the point here... if a congressman speaking at Trump's Jan 6th rally was 'acting in the scope of his duties' by addressing the public at a political event. There have been other, similar cases (like Murtha), but I think they are generally more about the Westfall Act (tort law) which has it's own definition of 'employee' that is much broader.
 * All the copyright compendium really says about "edicts of government" is citing cases where courts have agreed that since the Copyright Act doesn't explicitly create a copyright in them (doesn't mention them at all) then there isn't one (and people have been calling BS on Georgia for years). We're just left with that it should be 'broadly construed' in the public interest. Jarnsax (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

So, after some more digging around, I tracked down the 11th Circuit's decision in Georgia v. PRO here. What's interesting about it is they get to the same place starting from first principles, and essentially create a three part test: "Because our ultimate inquiry is whether a work is authored by the People, meaning whether it represents an articulation of the sovereign will, our analysis is guided by a consideration of those characteristics that are the hallmarks of law. In particular, we rely on the identity of the public officials who created the work, the authoritativeness of the work, and the process by which the work was created. These are critical markers. Where all three point in the direction that a work was made in the exercise of sovereign power -- which is to say where the official who created the work is entrusted with delegated sovereign authority, where the work carries authoritative weight, and where the work was created through the procedural channels in which sovereign power ordinarily flows -- it follows that the work would be attributable to the constructive authorship of the People, and therefore uncopyrightable."

This test (which the SC did not adopt, so it's only precedent in the 11th Cir.) excludes a lot of Congress-proximate stuff. Jarnsax (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Jarnsax: This is a test for whether a work is an edict of government, not if a work is a work of the U.S. government made by Congress (or a member thereof). “It tells you the same thing I just did”—it mentions the edict-of-government exception, yes; but it also, separately, mentions that the works of “[the] President [and] Congress” are “‘work[s] of the United States Government,’” which seems to imply there are non- works by the President and Congress which are still  . In addition, I would say that all resolutions passed by Congress are edicts of government, and fall under that exception (rather than the more general government-work exception). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @TE(æ)A,ea. Wrote a bunch, and wiped it, because I think I know the difficulty here. You are looking at and referring to the Copyright Compendium, which is useful, but does not have the force of law.
 * From 17 USC §101, the actual statute, "A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." That is the sum total of the definition. Actual elected officials are neither Officers of the US nor employees (employee is not defined, so law dictionary meaning. Who is their 'boss' that directs them how to do their job? Not employees.) The Compendium has to be read in context of what the law itself says, it is explanatory of USCO practice, but not 'proscriptive'... in context, they are trying to make clear that they are talking about any officer or employee of any part of the federal government whatsoever, but the restriction "officer or employee" cannot be expanded upon by anything but a revision of 17 USC by Congress. Officers of the United States are created through the Appointments Clause, and Members of Congress are prohibited from being an Officer by the Ineligibility Clause. Jarnsax (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Jarnsax: While engaging in this discussion, I have come to agree with the concerns raised in your position. However, we are neither judges nor legislators, and so (in my opinion) for Wikisource purposes the Compendium is dispositive, regardless of any such potentially serious errors. Unless the authors and editors of the Compendium decide to rewrite it to reflect this concern, or some new law or court case declares it so, we must follow the “leading law” (as much as the Compendium is that) in this case. The introduction to the Compendium gloats about how it has been cited in court cases as “highly persuasive,” and we cannot say that a judge will absolutely disagree with the Compendium’s finding, so, until such a change happens, I say we should follow the Compendium. (Also, because it supports my opinion.) As for your comment evincing a different interpretation of the Compendium, I disagree; I believe the catch-all clause at the end (“any other officer or employee of the U.S. federal government”) would cover officers and employees of Congress whether or no the sentence mentioned “Congress” separately; and I don’t think that the reference to “Congress” was meant to refer to “the officers and employees of Senators and Congressmen but not the representatives themselves”—a distinction they could have made. Regarding the 11th Circuit’s opinion, while it is not a nationwide standard, absent a Supreme Court ruling, I see no reason why Wikisource should not (in a general manner) adopt the finding as interpretive policy for, as being more specific than the Supreme Court’s ruling. (By the way, as a separate matter, this discussion should probably be moved to a more general forum; but that can happen later.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @TE(æ)A,ea. Yeah, I was happy to find the 11th Circuit ruling, also they do a really good job explaining why edicts are a matter of 'authorship', even though that admittedly sounds completely nonsensical on the surface. Regarding the Compendium, though, it does also state (in the intro) that it doesn't override any statute and isn't even binding on the Registrar... it just has the 'force of argument', and doesn't set precedent. We may disagree, but I'm pretty sure applying PD-USGov to anything not authored by an 'officer or employee' would be doomed to fail (though in reality they are probably written by staffers and USGov as works for hire anyhow). I think it's the boundaries of deviant congresscritter behavior (Murtha, anyone?) and what is 'campaigning' vs 'legislative' that's more likely to be an issue. Jarnsax (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

(as a quick interjection, cases like Murtha - under the Federal Tort Claims Act - are irrelevant to us, because the FCTA has it's own, extremely broad, definition of 'employee'. The criminal case about Jan 6th I linked above is going to hang on if it was part of the MoC's 'official duties', not his 'employee-ness') Jarnsax (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @TE(æ)A,ea. It might be helpful to look at the two relevant templates over on Commons, c:Template:PD-USGov-Congress and c:Template:PD-USGov-POTUS. Both (correctly) attribute the works they apply to as those of 'employees'... of Congress on the one hand, and the 'Executive Office of the President' on the other. Works of the United States Government created by employees of "Congress" are works for hire, and per 17 USC § 201 (b) "the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title"... so, the 'author' of works created by employees of Congress is Congress "itself" (as a corporate body) for purposes of copyright. The same logic applies in the other case.. they are employees of the President, so their 'works for hire' are works of the "President" (as an 'office', a 'corporation sole', not personal property ofc). Parsing 313.6(C)(1), they actually say "works created by the President; Congress; the federal judiciary; federal departments, agencies, boards, bureaus, or commissions; or any other officer or employee of the U.S. federal government". All of the items listed before the semicolon are 'corporate bodies' (for instance, it does not say 'judges', but 'the federal judiciary'...stuff like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). Jarnsax (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * By my count you're outnumbered 3:1 on this one; but I don't like closing these on mere majority vote, and especially not for a delete outcome. Would you be very strongly opposed to closing this as delete now and then let the issue of the possible primacy of the Compendium shake out over time in other copyright discussions? Testing the reasoning against different facts and situation often leads to better conclusions and better elucidates an issue. --Xover (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken; I have come here to discuss copyright, not to argue for deletion or not. I have not, until after this comment, looked at the actual text in dispute here. I would think that the materials here relate more to then-Senator candidate-for-President Pickens, and thus not be relevant to the general dispute regarding what constitutes the work of a Senator. (Supposing these to be deleted, the Wikipedia page should be updated to reflect that, and also the 10-year-old discussion that deleted the other letters.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @TE(æ)A,ea.: Hmm. Thanks for the clarification. However, while I am somewhat prone to extended discussions in abstract myself—as you may have noticed :)—the primary goal of these discussions on WS:CV is to reach a practical resolution for the text in question. In that light, can I assume that if you do not express a direct !vote through / you are discussing abstractly rather than arguing any particular way for the specific work? I want to stress that your input is both helpful and (very much!) appreciated, but I need to try to balance the concerns so the backlog here doesn't grow any longer than it already is. Xover (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * This section was archived on a request by: --Jusjih (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

General interest (not about a specific file)
While Googling around copyright matters I found this interesting article .... The title "Simultaneous Internet Publication and the Berne Convention" expresses what it's about pretty well...to quote, "This Article recommends that works of foreign origin should still be included in the definition of “United States works” when the copyright holder actively solicits customers in the United States via the Internet" and justifies it pretty well IMO. Seems like the argument (or at least points from it) could be enlightening here....I vaguely recall an Australian case (regarding slander, I believe) hinging on this. (c.e. I seem to be unable to copy a working link.... Google it, its in the "Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal.") Jarnsax (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I don't see where it makes any difference for us, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * See also Country of Origin and Internet Publication, which I disagree with. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The ransom note by Leopold and Loeb (1924)
because you transcribed a work on this murder case in the past. I was going to enter a transcription of this notable ransom note by, which is on Wikimedia Commons. However, it would almost certainly qualify as an unpublished work, so the rules may be different. According to c:Template:PD-US-unpublished, 1.) This work wouldn't apply to the death pre-1951 rule, because while Loeb died in 1936, Leopold died in 1971, which is after 1951. 2.) A pseudonym is used, so I guess it'd actually apply to the third note, which is that it should have been created before 1901. It wasn't.

So my unfortunate conclusion is that this note is not in the public domain in the US. Unless its publication of the note in newspapers and the like counts as publication...but I don't think that Leopold and Loeb themselves endorsed any of that, and I don't know that the newspapers in that case could be considered the copyright holders per se of the note. What do you think? If this is determined here to be still in copyright, we should bring the discussion to Wikimedia Commons and have them delete the image file. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It was as well printed and reprinted to have found its way to The Loeb–Leopold Case (1926); which, being published after the trial, prints public record material. Criminals cannot claim their illegal acts as legitimate for infringement (counter)claims, anyhow. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I have transcribed a lot of works for myself, and others in passing, over the years so expecting me to remember little things that I did can be pushing my recall. The upload comment on the file mentioned says "Chicago Daily News" so I am guessing it was printed at the time. It is one of those works over which I wouldn't normally fuss about copyright. The heirs can submit a DCMA request, and see how it goes with WMF legal, IMNSHO. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of the notes by the Author:Zodiac Killer were uploaded under PD-Disavowed. Not sure this template applies here (or even if we want to encourage use it on enWS) but could be worth knowing about? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I placed the template on the transcription of the ransom note. However, I agree something else should preferably be used. Would you say that enforcing a copyright on a work that was made illegally in the first place is virtually impossible? If so, we might want a template like Template:PD-illegal-act which explains the ginormous unlikelihood of a work made as a criminal act having any copyright enforced on it. (It might be appropriate to have this be a proposal in the Scriptorium because I feel like it's a discussion with a lot of legal nuance.) PseudoSkull (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that illegal acts are not copyrightable, see Eldar Haber’s treatise published by Yale Law School. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The copyright could conceivably be confiscated, as could any actual proceeds, by a court; but there is no general copyright exemption for a work based on its legality or lack thereof (unless we get into terrorism and national security: there are… special cases to consider there). And is nonsense in legal terms, and should not be used except in extremely exceptional circumstances (and I can't think of a good valid example off hand). That a suspected author has disavowed a work simply makes it anonymous, and follows the copyright rules for anonymous works; and if they have acknowledged authorship then they are the author and needs to make a legally valid and binding dedication to the public domain or release the work with a compatible license.  tries to pretend that the mere assertion that someone is the author is sufficient to make it so, and that their denial ("disavowal") of authorship is the same as a valid dedication to the public domain.Oh, and enforcing a copyright on a work that was "made illegally" (I presume we mean "produced in the commission of a crime" or "which is evidence of a crime") is neither impossible nor even particularly difficult. If the crime was notorious you may have trouble because fair use reduces the market for your copyrights, but otherwise all you have to do is sue infringers or enter into licensing contracts. Typically after you get out of jail, but that's unrelated to the validity or enforceability of the copyright. Xover (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Has it ever seen publication authorised by the authors? If not then it is unpublished (newspapers get fair use exemptions, and public records are accessible, but none of that affects copyright). That it was published under a pseudonym isn't really relevant since the real authors are known and have been since shortly after it was written. Xover (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * "Specifically, publication occurs when one or more copies or phonorecords are distributed to a member of the public who is not subject to any express or implied restrictions concerning the disclosure of the content of that work." Copyright Compendium III, 1905.1 Distribution to the Public. There was no restrictions included in that note regarding its disclosure, nor is it reasonable to read implied restrictions into something like a ransom note. Having it published is a normal reaction, and if Leopold or Loeb wanted to use the force of the law to stop that, I'd think they were obliged to say so.
 * Also, cf. "DANJAQ LLC MGM UA v. Kevin O'Conovan McClory". They've had 95 years to object to the continuing exploitation of this note, and we are at great disadvantage due to what agreements Leopold or Loeb may have made, informally or formally.
 * Finally, we're putting in a lot of argument for something that's been published for a long time, that has no economic worth, and de minimis non curat lex.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Much as I hate to disagree with you on matters like this… While you can make an argument based on level of risk versus amount of effort expended, claiming de minimis specifically here is stretching the concept when we're using all of the work and not as an incidental part of our own creative contribution. And why in the world would we assume any more "intent to publish" for a ransom note—documenting a criminal act—than any normal letter? The doctrine of laches is an affirmative defence, so the mere assertion of it presupposes and admits both the existence of a copyright and our infringement of it. Planning in advance to make use of a laches defence thus makes the infringement wilful, and unclean hands is a bar to a valid laches defence even if it would otherwise meet the criteria. Which this wouldn't, because the clock doesn't start until the owners of the copyright become aware of the infringement, which, barring a lawsuit I'm unaware of, has not yet happened. There is also no reasonable argument to be made that the owner's delay prejudices us in any measurable way, neither evidentially nor economically. But even worse is that, as an affirmative defence, much like fair use, latches would protect us but not our re-users. Even in Danjaq v. McClory there is no question as to latches invalidating or otherwise affecting the copyright itself, only McClury's ability to gain equitable relief for the alleged infringement of it, for the specific alleged instances of infringement by the specific named parties. Xover (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not about intent to publish. It's about "distributed to a member of the public who is not subject to any express or implied restrictions concerning the disclosure of the content of that work." The receiver of the note was under no express restrictions about disclosure, and notices like this are regularly published, putting to doubt any claims about implied restrictions. I'd feel that any demand or threat to a hostile party would lack that "implicit restriction", and certainly one which public policy would against prohibiting the publication of. That's not a full-throated PD-Illegal; just that if you get a note about an illegal act, the implication should be that you should publish it, not hide it, and the copyright law read at the time that if there was no implication the receiver should not further distribute it, it was published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Laches may not apply to us, but note that Danjaq v. McClory was clearly not limited to past infringements; laches were applied to the 1999 movie The World Is Not Enough, for which this litigation, started in 1997-1998, was clearly timely. That ruling didn't leave any door open for McClory to sue Danjaq for future infringements.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I would expect that while sending the letter doesn't convey copyright ownership, it does convey an implicit license to publish it since there is no expectation of privacy in this context as would affect a personal letter. It would seem similar to me as sending to a newspaper editor or magazine, we wouldn't say that a letter written in 1910 to a newspaper wasn't published because we can't find a written agreement conveying the right to publication. So Leopold and Loeb gave an implicit right to publication and the copyright would then have expired without the registration / renewal after it was published. MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically, I agree with the analysis above. Mailing a note to members of the public causes publication because no implicit restrictions (such as a pre-existing relationship), and unlike other examples, such a mailing a manuscript to a publisher covered by "limited distribution": "to a definitely selected group and for a limited purpose", any purpose here is criminal and not a valid purpose and therefore ineligible for limited distribution protection. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My opinion on this now is that because it was published in so many other sources later (in PD years like 1925 and 1926), this became effectively published material and therefore public domain. There would have been no way for Leopold or Lobe to really object to this happening, nor did they. I think we should give this the benefit of the doubt, and close the discussion. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)