Wikisource:Copyright discussions
| SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days. For the archive overview, see /Archives. |
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Deleted; public domain status of translation not proven
No sign of the English translation being in the public domain, the earliest occurrence of this translated text I have found is in National anthems from around the world : the official national anthems, flags, and anthem histories from 56 countries, published in 1996. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
3 3 06:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Answered.
I went from Main_page in to find out about the licensing here. I want to have GNU FDL on my journals and magazines but that same page is licensed by the Creative Commons. Are they the same? Can we be GNU for a while? For the software?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- No, they are not the same, and (if I understood it right) pure GNU FDL is not accepted anymore by Wikimedia Foundation projects, only dual-licensed with another compatible license, typically with some CC-BY-SA license. What I see as most problematic is that GNU FDL allows invariant sections, which are incompatible with our demand of unconditional agreement with derivative works, + some more points which are just impractical, like the demand that the full license text (not just the link to the licence) has to accompany every copy of the work. But others who understand it better than me might give more details. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Jan Kameníček: I am looking for a way to document my images and other media. I want something that says I can go back to the original. I want to insure my originals be it sound, moving pictures, or text, are all honest and the best of what I had to work with. Is there a better way for that?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- At the bottom of every edit box is written:
By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL.
Having by your edits released them under the CC BY-SA, which does not include the ND (no derivatives) condition. So no, in short, you can't prevent people from modifying stuff you add to Wikimedia projects. (AFAIK this is intentional; as doing so would go against the whole "free content" idea.) Of course, this whole comment assumes that that's what you meant byI want to insure my originals [...] are all honest
, I'm not sure I understood. Feel free to clarify. — Alien 3
3 3 19:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- At the bottom of every edit box is written:
- Jan Kameníček: I am looking for a way to document my images and other media. I want something that says I can go back to the original. I want to insure my originals be it sound, moving pictures, or text, are all honest and the best of what I had to work with. Is there a better way for that?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Index:The ideal lovibond color system for C I E standard illuminants A and C shown in three colorimetric systems (IA ideallovibondcol716haup).pdf
Derived from data in a previous paper whose author was not a Federal employee, This is a derived work. The prvevious paper has been proposed for deletion at Commons, on the same basis. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Did you mean to label these as WS:CV instead? MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing found in the CCE for this paper. (The issue here is the contribution of a specific Non-Federal author, in the earlier paper) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- I've withdrawn both of the Commons DR's, having not been able to locate this in either of 3 relevant catalog systems. This was clearly a US publication, and as far as I can tell there isn't a notice on it. This may make the concern that prompted my concern above an issue that can be handled in a different way. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Started in good faith, but I can't actually find anything in the Document to say it's actually crown copyright, rather than merely just having the HMSO imprint. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- @ShakespeareFan00: I have moved these 4 discussions to WS:CV from WS:PD. Copyright issues should be discussed here. — Alien 3
3 3 12:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Sourced from https://www.worldstatesmen.org/Syria-constitution1950.txt, no sign of the translation being in the public domain. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Copypasted from https://www.royalhouseofromaniahohenzollern-sigmaringen.com/constitution-1866, there is no sign of the English translation being in the public domain. Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Sourced from https://www.royalhouseofromaniahohenzollern-sigmaringen.com/text-constitution-of-1923, there is no sign of the English translation being in the public domain. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Sourced from https://www.jstor.org/stable/20832714, but no sign of the English translation being in the public domain again. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
And companion Index:Journal of the Optical Society of America, volume 30, number 12.pdf.
I am placing these here because, I recently asked both Hathi and Google to review the access to other related volumes on the basis of the non-renewal. However the response was negative as to opening access to this, suggesting that there is additional information about the status of these volumes which the Online Books page of the Catalog of Copyright Entries does not record.
As far as could be determined when these were provided in good faith, there was no copyright, All three of the major scan archives now seem to apparently think there are reasons why post 1929 volumes of this Journal cannot be made generally available (IA as for example restricted this volume despite the non renewal.) Perhaps someone would like to definitively determine if this was in fact renewed, as I'd be extremely annoyed if I wasted my time on the basis of incomplete metadata at the source. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/jopticalsocamerica says that pre-1950 volumes should be safe. I don't think there's any perfect way, but I wouldn't worry about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes and that was the data alongside checks of the Catalog of Copyright Entries scans at Google/IA, at initial upload, I also can't find records to the 1930-1950 volumes on copyright.gov. However, that doesn't preclude a 'late' renewal post 1978, the record of which hasn't yet shown up in the online databases. Hmm...
- ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- There should be no post-1978 renewal of a 1943 work. It's 28 years, and no matter how you cut the edges, that's too much of a difference.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- You are also more than welcome to approach the major archive sites, with a carefully worded comment about the haphazzard nature of some of their curation practices! ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've now flagged the entire Issue which was transcribed here (and in error marked as no-notice, when this clearly should have marked as non-renewal. ) as copyvio.
- Journal of the Optical Society of America/Volume 30/Issue 12/Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting
- Journal of the Optical Society of America/Volume 30/Issue 12/Spacing of the Munsell Colors
- Journal of the Optical Society of America/Volume 30/Issue 12/Trichromatic Analysis
- Journal_of_the_Optical_Society_of_America/Volume_30/Issue_12/Analysis_of_the_Munsell_Color_System
- Journal_of_the_Optical_Society_of_America/Volume_30/Issue_12/History_of_the_Munsell_Color_System
- Journal_of_the_Optical_Society_of_America/Volume_30/Issue_12/Editorial_Comment
- Journal of the Optical Society of America/Volume 30/Issue 12/Author Index
- Journal_of_the_Optical_Society_of_America/Volume_30/Issue_12
- Journal_of_the_Optical_Society_of_America/Volume_30
Perhaps a contributor more experienced in the nuances would be willing to make a determination of the actual status, and provide direct scans of the original printed issues and volume in content, which IA has now restricted, despite originally uploading it in good faith.
Sometimes it's simply not worth the effort, when there are countless other clearly public domain works from the 19th century and earlier that Wikisource still doesn't have. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Parallel disccusions for the Commons files :
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- I still can't find the renewal(s), I can't even at this stage find the original registrations. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Conclusion : "Agressive" publisher , as I've gone through the Virtual Card catalog with numerous permutations. Perhaps some here would like to clean up this train-wreck? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
The linked source was published in 1960. That means the introductory text is likely copyrighted unless it came from an original publication. Presumably the text was published in English in a Communist International publication in the 1920s but it would be good to check. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- I found it https://archive.org/details/per_daily-worker_1924-09-24_2_159/mode/1up MoAiSang (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's not the same text, exactly. Probably another translation of a same text. Examples:
| ws page | that article |
|---|---|
| The British Government, led by the Labour Party | The British Government, a government put into power by a Labour Party |
| Before the eyes of the world and the international revolutionary workers' movement | Before the eyes of the whole world and in opposition to the desires of the international revolutionary labour movement |
- — Alien 3
3 3 10:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)- Updated with the version of Daily Worker MoAiSang (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Well then, given that new current version of our text was extracted from a 1924 newspaper, which is {{PD-US}}, that's a Keep for me. — Alien 3
3 3 15:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Well then, given that new current version of our text was extracted from a 1924 newspaper, which is {{PD-US}}, that's a Keep for me. — Alien 3
- Updated with the version of Daily Worker MoAiSang (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- — Alien 3
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.
Despite this being an NBS imprint, I am not convinced that is in fact a Federal work, given that https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015086505552&seq=7 states it was an ISCC publication, through the NBS. Hence I am bringing it here.
For simmilar reasons ALL contributions from NBS material should be reviewed as well.
I think we should adopt a clear, pre 1930 cutoff for inclusion moving forward, as it's unreasonable to expect contributors to dig too deeply into specfic nuances like this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
- You can decide to just not touch post-1930 stuff; I do; and it is the contributor's responsibility of establishing that the text they're adding is freely licensed. As I see it, those who want to add such texts need to do long and complicated checks; if you don't want to, just don't add these texts. — Alien 3
3 3 10:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
- That's a fair assesement. I can't find the above in the CCE, so If not federal it's No Notice, as I can't see one. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
- Even when users are fully prepared to go beyond what a typical search would involve, setting a clear cut-off would be desirable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Withdrawn - Not found in searches, and has NBS/DoC imprint on front cover, and no visible notice, I can determine. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Parallel discussion: Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:A_Phonetical_Study_of_the_Eskimo_Language_by_William_Thalbitzer.pdf This originates from a danish orginal, the author Danish died in 1958. It may well be PD-US in case the file should be localised, as it shouldn't be on Commons, given the status of the Danish original. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. This is certainly in the public domain in the United States (published 1904), so it should be moved here if it is deleted elsewhere. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Checking back on something I no longer have confidence in the meta-data IA provided, or in this not having been renewed.
Doing some recent searches, I've found a near identical work attributed through to an edition in 1968 (reprinted in 1981 according to Hathi). (https://openlibrary.org/books/OL14242686M/Pattern_drafting_and_grading) for which a copyright exists in the relevant records (the earliest noted edition is 1938.) Given this I no longer have confidence in this not having been renewed although I can't find any renewals in respect of a 1961 or earlier editions, in the Catalog of Copyright Entries. The IA version include supplements which are undated.
Frustrating, but the solution is to delete and stat again with a scan that has clear provenance, which the IA one doesn't, given that it, it names a Micheal Rohr as author, which cannot be determined from the work itself. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. Given that this edition is from 1961, and that there is no renewal, then it can be presumed that it is in the public domain. I also don’t think that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to doubt the veracity of the scan, either, and while I’m at it, no copyright notice which applies to the whole of the work (just one notice, dated 1961, on a supplemental part). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I checked for the earlier late 30's versions, with no renewal showing up in the searches I did. Worldcat also mentions a revised 1950 (presumably a version that was revised prior to the 1961 edition), I've been unable to locate. If the earlier versions were not in copyright either.. then given the fahsion and costume changes between the late 30's and early 60's, there is potential scope for including the earlier editions, assuming we can 'prove' the licensing. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Checked 1960,1961,1962 for an original registration. By author surname and title, and hadn't found it yet. Perhaps you can do parallel searches to check I'm not missing something?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- This was WILL have to be deleted - Per comments here https://forum.seamly.io/t/a-1961-pattern-system-from-archive-org/7896/16. If the original holder does want to keep the legacy available, they would have to fully the VTRS or donation procedures that are in place. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Why? I haven't been involved in checking this one, but it shouldn't matter how pushy the author is, if it's out of copyright in the US, it's out of the copyright in the US. The WMF is pretty good at blocking invalid DMCA claims.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- If you want to do an exhaustive search of all the relevant catalogs, I am not stopping you, but based on the current information, I have no confidence in this being under a 'free' license, or expired. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
This is now REALLY confusing - Page:Pattern Drafting And Grading (1961).djvu/153 says 1961, but mentions two items for which I can only find entries for editions in 1967 and 1968 respectively. (If those mentioned items are earlier editions of those that were seemingly not registered, there's no easy to show that. This to me suggests this might be a scan of a later edition, and the "title" (or other pages) were not updated from a 1961 or intermediate printing, with the "Supplments" having other dates from the main work.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)- ShakespeareFan00: I agree with Prosfilaes: there is no evidence of potential copyright, so there is no need to search through the CCE. As for the two works mentioned, the Women’s and Misses’ book was published before 1957, and Children’s Garment Design at least by 1951; I don’t know where you got your 1960s dates from, but those two publications, at least, predate 1961. Even if this was a post-1961 reprint, it wouldn’t matter in terms of additional copyrights because there is no post-1961 copyright notice (and a notice was required at the time). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- The 1967 and 1968 works were tile I found in the CCE/Card Catalog, and I'll be generous, and perhaps consider I am confused by simillar sounding titles or later editions. So in summary:
- 1961 work with visble notice
- No apparent renewal found,
- Possibly later editions being revised all the way to a 1981 printing (according to Hathi) I'm going to let the discussion run on the basis of the forum thread linked.
- I'm going to leave this discussion open, even if the consensus forming, seems to be different from mine. Commenters here might also want to consider the parallel discussion at Commons about the File: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
I won't tag the file, but this lists a second author J.T. Iley that I've not been able to identify, in terms of date. The concern is that their contribution means the status of this is undetermined, and I could not narrow it down further with FreeBMD. At the very least the file should be made local as it pre-dates 1930. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Also the 1900 date, looks like an IA generic date, as the actual one couldn't be identified. This cannot be later than the late 1920's, given Vincent's lifetime though, so just scrapes in as a pre 1930 work. (So could be hosted locally if Commons deleted it.). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
The file is File:Bengal Fairy Tales.djvu, File is currently on Commons, However, the author (British) died in 1963, meaning it perhaps should be hosted locally, unless this can be treated as US editon, it is pre 1930 so does this qualify as 'simultaneous' between the US and UK printings?. Hmm...
- Keep. It was simultaneously published in the United States, where it is in the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Withdrawn Simultaneous publication ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Index:The University Hymn Book.djvu The issue (and I appreciate this work was discussed previously) is that one of the contributors (Canadian) died in 1973, The cut off Canadian works (at 50 pma) is a 1972 death. Canadian terms were extended to 70pma) in 2022. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. The file has already been localized, so this discussion is irrelevant. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- Withdrawn although I converted {{missing score}} to {{text removed}}, which solved the issue for me. You can revert if you wish, but I was being pragmatic. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)