Wikisource:Copyright discussions

Two collection of essays by G. K. Chesterton (1874–1936), published in 1975 and 1964. The ones in the latter are asserted (in the notes field) to have been never previously published. The other has no similar note.

My head isn't cooperating just now, so I'm dropping them here for help. We need to check the status of these, especially the allegedly unpublished ones, and update the listing. I suspect most of these are PD, including some of the ones currently tagged as being in copyright. It'd be nice to get these cleaned up properly. Xover (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

• As collections, they should be deleted eventually, although they should be kept for now to facilitate copyright research on the individual essays. The note in The Spice of Life and Other Essays says, “None of them has appeared in a collection before.” They have, however, appeared in periodicals before. For example, the first essay in that collection, “Sentimental Literature”, first appeared in The Speaker for July 27, 1901. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Aha! Yes, that makes it even more likely these are mostly PD. Xover (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Collections have their own copyright, and having the table of contents and links to the individual essays here is probably too much. We can have the individual essays here, but not reproduce their headings and orderings.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Meh. Collection copyrights are dumb. :-(

Anybody made any progress on identifying source of original publication for these, or alternate (PD) collections to which we could source them? Xover (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Xover: “A Sermon on Cheapness,” The Speaker, March 29, 1902. The top of this page lists the sources, which are presumably correct. A lot of his articles were printed in the Daily News, as detailed in G.K. Chesterton at the Daily News. These stories should be listed on his Author: page, moved to top-level pages, and migrated over when sources can be found. Quite a bit of The Speaker is on Internet Archive, for example. After this, the collections can be deleted, as they are copyrighted. As for alternate collections, these all seem to be short pieces not previously published in book form, which is why they show up in collections. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: Thank you! Xover (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Apostle and the Wild Ducks is already solved and deleted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• The Spice of Life and Other Essays/Fiction as Food, Part 2 was found in T. P.'s Weekly, vol. 11 (1911), but it is not absolutely the same: It is called there differently ("Novel-reading"), is divided into sections with its own titles, and above all it has a different last paragraph. So unless somebody will rework it, it will have to be deleted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
• The Soul in Every Legend found in The New witness v.17-18 Jan.-Dec. 1921, but there are differences in the text. Thus, the move is not possible as the text from the weekly needs to be proofread anew.
• Cannot find The Everlasting Nights anywhere to check them. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • “The Everlasting Nights” was first published in the November 7, 1901, edition of the Daily News. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Yes, that is stated in G.K. Chesterton at the Daily News, but the problem is that this edition seems nowhere available and so it cannot be checked. As it was shown above, many essays published in this collection were changed in comparison with the originals, and so we cannot simply move them unless they are checked against the original edition. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

    • I have been working on getting copies of Chesterton’s writings in the Daily News, but they have not been easily forthcoming. In any case, as to your point below, it is better to keep a text that to delete where, as here, there is no noticeable copyrightable difference. While these should all, eventually, be migrated, I do not believe that that is necessary to preserve them from deletion now. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

      That is really great if you plan to get the copies of the particular issues of Daily News, but I think the essays should be transcribed anew from these issues. We should not simply migrate the texts from this collection under the headings of the Daily News, because the texts in the collection often differ (sometimes more sometimes less) from the original editions in Daily News. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Aesop's Fables were published as an Introduction to V. S. Vernon Jones' translation of Aesop's fables. Imo would be better not to excerpt it from the rest of the publication. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC) There are also some differences in paragraphing and some minor typography, so it cannot be just moved/copied. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
• As Large as Life in Dickens was possibly published in The Daily News, 8 February 1902, but cannot be found to be checked. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Charlotte Bronte as a Romantic was published in id=wu.89088290648&seq=61 Charlotte Brontë; 1816-1916 : a centenary memorial, but that text differs in paragraphing + various typography, including different spelling of Bronte/Brontë, so it would needs to be transcribed anew anyway.

After checking those above, I am not sure if it is worth the effort to check the rest. Imo it is not a good idea simply to move a transcription from some edition under a different title, I believe that each edition should always be transcribed separately, and so I suggest to delete the subpages too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Unless opposed, I will delete it soon. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Levensohn translation (which this apparently is) was not renewed, so the text should not have been deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

After a quick look at the Stanford database, the copyright really seems not renewed. If confirmed, it can be undeleted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you looked through Stanford and didn't find anything it was probably not renewed. A bit odd since they registered the new matter for the second edition in 1960, but… It might also be worthwhile to search the actual volumes for 1941+28 for the original registration numbers (see ei's comment in the previous discussion) just to make sure there's no quirk of spelling or category that's preventing us from finding the renewals. Xover (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Comment The deletion discussion is at https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?oldid=12722222#Old_New_Land it seems to have levels of research that contradicts the "not renewed". More informtion required that demonstrates that the deletion discussion was incorrect. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

• No, that’s incorrect. The previous discussion revealed the same information I mention now, (including the fact of public-domain status,) and then deleted it without a reason. That’s why I started this discussion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: It was not "deleted without reason". It was deleted because the copyright discussion Billinghurst linked showed the work to have been published in 1941 and properly registered for copyright (with a registered second edition in 1960). That discussion also showed that you were mistaken about the identity of the translator. In other words, you are in this thread making a bald assertion in contradiction of the previous discussion, spicing it up with implied criticism of the closing admin (which happened to be me this time, but could have been anyone), giving no details of the research you've done, and don't even link to that previous discussion that you only after being challenged reveal to be most of your implied argument.

  In future, please consider making requests like this in a more structured and complete way. If you are requesting undeletion of a previously deleted text then link to any and all relevant previous discussions. If there are mistakes, confusions, missing aspects, etc. in those discussions then please point them out specifically. If you have done subsequent research please describe that research and its outcomes (especially for "absence of evidence" cases like non-renewal, it's critical that we be able to show we have made a good faith effort to identify any possible copyright). And please frame the undeletion request itself neutrally and assuming good faith (no sniping at the closing admin please): if you have complaints about anyone involved they can be raised on a user talk page, WS:S, or WS:AN, but WS:CV (or WS:PD) is not the place for that.

  Or to put it slightly more succinctly: if you want to persuade someone of something, it's usually more effective to make a persuasive argument than to complain of their failure to read your mind. Xover (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • Xover: I will try to respond to your aspersions in order. It was “deleted without reason”; the rationale simply stated that it was a copyright violation, without addressing at all the strong evidence against such a claim raised during the discussion. Einstein95’s research in that discussion, which you specifically thanked, found the proper source for the discussion (the identified source, which I had discussed, was of a different work). The discussion showed a publication in 1941, which had a copyright notice but no renewal. I was not mistaken; the mistake originated in a different Web-site, which was (I believe) the original source of our text. I am not contradicting the former discussion; I created this discussion so that the result of the previous discussion could be implemented. I started this discussion to resolve the error involved in improperly closing the original discussion; of course that would imply something against the dignity of the closing administrator. There is no additional research to be done; all of the research necessary to be done in reference to this work was already done in the original discussion. I don’t know why it would be necessary for me to find the discussion for another user; it is directly referenced in the deletion log. In the course of making an undeletion request, I seek to provide all necessary information; but there is nothing for to add when (as here) I merely reference the previous discussion and the incorrect closure of said discussion. Again, there is no “subsequent research” which would supplemental to my argument; all of the information was available at the time of the original discussion. I don’t think it’s important to discuss the closing administrator at all; merely the incorrect closure which was done. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Nothing found in the volumes of the Catalogue of Copyright Entries for 1968 and 1969 (i.e. 1941+27 and 1941+28) either. The work can be renewed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

My question here, really, goes to how devolved Crown copyright is in Canada. This report was made by the government of Ontario, or some part of it, and includes a specific notice of Ontario’s Crown copyright (with a no-commercial-use restriction) on the first blank page. The license template states that this is free for use in the United States because Canada has pledged not to enforce Crown copyright in the United States in works with restored copyrights under the URAA. However, I am not sure if this pledge (again, on behalf of Canada) binds Ontario (or any province); if the Crown copyright truly vests in Ontario, as the notice in this PDF would seem to indicate, then Canada, I believe, has no power to pledge nonenforcement. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. Interesting question. My immediate inclination would be to take that statement at face value. It has no obvious red flags of copyfraud or misunderstanding of copyright, and looks well-thought out. Canadian provinces are somewhat more autonomous, and their relationship to "the Crown" more notional, than typically found in the UK (Ireland and Scotland being the obvious exceptions). It's not something I've ever had cause to research, so I could well be wrong, but nothing I actually do know makes me immediately question that statement. Xover (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Provincial crown copyright is held by the King's Printer for Ontario, not Public Works and Government Services Canada, so I am inclined to agree that this template cannot be assumed to apply to provincial or territorial works. And in cases with unclear or ambiguous copyright, our usual practice is to  Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The King's Printer presumably could grant a US release via OTRS as well for works with expired crown copyright. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I suggest TE(æ)A,ea. to raise the question in Commons, because 1) if the work is not in the Public Domain in the US, it should not be present in Commons either, and 2) there we are more likely to receive opinions from people conversant in Canadian copyright. Or, I can do it myself, although I am not sure if I am able to explain the problem well enough. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have raised the question at Commons too, see here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Followup to Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2020#Lehrer's translations where original would be under copyright:

• "Tout va très bien, Madame la Marquise" was released in 1935, so it's under US copyright until 2031 (p.m.a. 70 protection until 2069).
• "Les Bourgeois" was released in 1962, so it's under US copyright until 2058 (p.m.a. 70 protection until 2049).
• "Juca" was released in 1966, so it's under US copyright until 2062 (author still living).
• "Bom Tempo" was released in 1968, so it's under US copyright until 2064 (author still living).
• The following pages should be deleted, and the corresponding pages in the PDF should be redacted + removed from file history:
  • Page:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf/2
  • Page:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf/3
  • Page:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf/8
  • Page:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf/9
  • Page:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf/10
  • Page:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf/44
  • Page:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf/90

—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I took a look at "Juca" (scan page 44). I agree that the Portuguese lyrics are under copyright, and they should be redacted. And I agree that a translation of them would be under copyright as well, but the Lehrer lyrics for "Juca" are not a translation. A few phrases match, but the majority of it seems to be a rewrite using the spirit and meter, but not the meaning or words. Here is a quick comparison between the original (with translation) and Lehrer's version of the same section:

Portuguese lyrics	Translation	Lehrer's lyrics
O seu luar Virou chuva fria A sua serenata Não acordou Maria.	Your moonlight Turned into freezing rain; Your serenade Did not awake Maria.	Outside the shops ⁠Along that street in Rio, ⁠He tried to get the cops ⁠To make the act a trio.

As you can see from this example, Lehrer's lyrics are unrelated to the content of the original lyrics, and therefore will not be under copyright. So the Lehrer lyrics, as far as I can judge are not a translation and therefore original to him. Therefore, it is only the foreign-language text that should be redacted from the scan. Nothing else needs to be deleted or removed except for any transcription of the copyrighted foreign-language text, which not all the pages have done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@EncycloPetey:: On the other hand:

French lyrics	Translation (machine)	Lehrer's lyrics
Allô, allô, James, quelles nouvelles Absente depuis quinze jours, Au bout du fil je vous appelle Que trouverai-je à mon retour?	Hello, hello, James, what news Absent for a fortnight, At the end of the line I'll call you What will I find when I return?	Hello, hello, James? Tell me, what's new? I've been away two weeks or so, And that is why I'm calling you For any news that I should know.

The still-copyrighted foreign lyrics certainly need to be redacted. But without diving in deep I think making a call on the English lyrics is going to be really tough. They are unquestionably derivative works of the foreign-language originals, so I think our default assumption must be that they are covered by the original's copyright, and then only for cases where we actively verify that the lyrics are as unconnected as in your example we can accept it. This French example is essentially straight translation, but it could be as extreme an example as the Portuguese one with most of the texts somewhere in-between. It needs detailed and case-by-case analysis is, I guess, what I'm saying. --Xover (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've checked both Portuguese songs, and in those situations, Lehrer's lyrics are largely unconnected to the originals, except where a short phrase might be carried over to allude to the original. I am not skilled enough with French to address those lyrics. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the same goes for "The Bourgeoisie", e.g.:

French lyrics	Literal translation	Lehrer's lyrics
Jojo se prenait pour Voltaire Et Pierre pour Casanova Et moi, moi qui étais le plus fier Moi, moi je me prenais pour moi	Jojo thought he was Voltaire And Pierre, Casanova And I, who was the proudest, I thought I was was me	Pierre thought he was Casanova, Jojo, Voltaire and Debussy, And I, who always was the proudest, I imagined I was—me!

—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 16:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that only those lyrics where it has been verified that they are unconnected to the original can be kept. So if anyone makes such a research and compares literal translations of full originals (i. e. not just excerpts as in the examples above) with Lehrer's translations of the lyrics, then a list of lyrics to be spared from deletion can be made. The rest will have to be deleted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy to do this for the French songs. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This topic also applies to many (but not all) of the poems listed at Author:Robert Ervin Howard/Poetry. There is no source and no explicit claim of a free license or public domain status. After some hunting I found the poem here, but while this claims to be part of the "opensource" collection on the Internet Archive, there is no explicit license named, and the book appears to be a self-compiled work (with none of the ordinary front matter a traditional publisher would include). It does not mention copyright status or licensing on the IA page (beyond the "collection") or in the work.

My best guess is that this, and numerous other, of Howard's poems were unpublished in his short lifetime. He died in 1936. Perhaps their copyright has not been vigorously defended, and while much of his work has fallen into the public domain due to lack of copyright renewal, I believe unpublished works would not require a renewal.

When voting, please indicate whether your !vote should apply to all of Howard's poetry that was unpublished in his lifetime, as there appear to be many such poems on Wikisource. -Pete (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I now see {{PD-old-US}} which seems to address these pages. My apologies. -Pete (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Peteforsyth: The copyright situation for Howard's works is hyper-complicated, which, in addition to his prodigious output, is why we have about a bajillion of his works in various states of insufficient copyright tagging. He wrote a massive amount of poetry in letters to a small group of friends, that was unpublished at the time of his death. There has been wrangling over his copyrights for a century, including at least two transparent land-grabs. One of those was a poetry collection published in 2002 (I'm fuzzy on the details: it's been a while) specifically to secure copyrights. It's an utter mess and means we need to do diligent research for each of his poems individually to figure out their publishing history. A lot of Howard's material is in the public domain, but a significant chunk is not, so we can make few blanket assumptions. The good news is that Howard fans have cataloged first publication info for a whole lot of these, so it's often entirely possible to come to a conclusion; it just takes some effort. Xover (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, as I continued to poke around I found this discussion, which has links (including archival) to Herman's work. @Xover: would you consider the most recent revision of his document ([https://web.archive.org/web/20190715192544/http://www.robert-e-howard.org/AnotherThought4rerevised.html this one, unless there's a newer one not mentioned in that wiki discussion) authoritative for any works at all (either demonstrating that something is or is not in copyright), or merely a launch point for more authoritative research? (Note that Miser's Gold does not appear in that document, so I should probably remove the tag I added and bring that up for deletion. I'll hold off on further action till I hear back though.) -Pete (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note, technically the unpublished works written after 1928 do not fit in the Wikisource inclusion criteria. I'm not proposing anything radical, but just noticed that; perhaps some should be deleted, or perhaps the policy needs some finessing. -Pete (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

So far as I know none of these are actually unpublished today. The issue is whether they were unpublished at the magic dates in 2002/2003 or thereabouts. Xover (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, indicative rather than authoritative; you need to check the claims it makes. Not least because we have access to a lot more information now (online) than what Herman had in 2007, and the applicable copyright issues are now much better understood. Xover (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for spelling that out, that all makes sense. (I don't understand what's "magic" about 2002/03, but happy to take your word for it.) -Pete (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the US there are special rules for works that were unpublished at certain dates. Unpublished works created before 1978 and published between 1977 and 2003 are in copyright until the longer of pma. 70 and December 31st, 2047. If they were created before 1978 and published after 2002 they are covered by a pma. 70 copyright term. Since Howard died in 1936 any of his pma. 70 terms will have expired. Meaning that if they were unpublished on January 1, 2003 they are now public domain ({{PD-US-unpublished}}). Which is why one of the many entities vying for Howard's copyrights published several collections of his previously unpublished works in 2002: they wanted to preserve the copyright until 2047. Xover (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for spelling it out. One by one I'm grasping the various rules about renewals... -Pete (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to w:Robert E. Howard bibliography (poems I–O) the poem "Miser's Gold" was published in Fantasy Crossroads #8, May 1976. So, if I understand it right, unless we have some evidence that it was published there without a copyright notice, it is copyrighted until 1976+96=2072. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The poem Cimmeria was published in The Howard Collector #7 in 1965. Unless there is some evidence it was published without a copyright notice, it is copyrighted until 1965+96=2061. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The same applies to The Road To Hell published in "Singers in the Shadows" (1970) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Romance (Howard) was published in 2002 in "A Rhyme of Salem Town and Other Poems" and thus it is copyrighted.

San Jacinto published in 1989 in "Shadows of Dreams" and thus copyrighted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The LOMEM utility mentioned, I found the original publication - https://archive.org/details/Apple-Orchard-v1n1-1980-Mar-Apr/page/n14/mode/1up?q=LOMEM - and I can't find any notices (or as yet a registration within 5 years), Can someone here do a more detailed check? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ShakespeareFan00: The work has been uploaded to Commons, which is thus also affected. Can you create a deletion request there too? You may also get there more replies. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Noted, It's only the program that's at issue , if at all. It's not included in the Wikisource Transcription obviously. The rest of the document is obvioulsy a US Gov work of the NBS/NIST. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see no reason why this should be PD in the US. -- Beardo (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to Spanish wikipedia, the author lived 1897-1985. I suppose it is possible that the words were written before 1928, and only adopted as a national anthem in 1967, but I haven't found any indication of that. -- Beardo (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

He was born in England and only arrived in St. Lucia in 1928 so that is unlikely. The more likely path is that it was published in the St. Lucia Gazette and so would fall under EdictGov. in St. Lucia on the URAA date so it would no be restored. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

If the words were written previously, would them being published in the Gazette alter their copyright status ? -- Beardo (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Possibly? Depends on how it is exactly printed, which is the problem, someone needs to go digging into the archives of law libraries for each of these national anthems and look exactly how it is adopted via law. Is it like this with it printed in an act: Government Gazette of the Republic of Namibia/321/National Anthem of the Republic of Namibia Act? or does it just mention by reference? Re the general principle, I doubt people would say that if a group proposes a constitutional amendment whose wording is then adopted that group then has a copyright claim on the country's constitution (e.g. that if the National Women's Party text of the ERA was adopted then the National Women's Party would have copyright over the US Constitution), PD-EdictGov never invalidates a copyright claim of an author then it is kind of superfluous no if it only applies to already uncopyrighted edicts? MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

As an extreme example, HMG drafts a white paper of "Secret Crimes we won't tell people about Act", claims crown copyright, parliament passes the exact text of the bill. The idea of EdictGov is that HMG doesn't have an "out" to have a secret list of crimes now protected by copyright no one can publish so you can never know about them. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I’ve sent for Saint Lucia’s book of ordinances from that time, so I should be able to tell soon one way or another. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: Any news? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is a short story written by H. P. Lovecraft likely in 1919. It was apparently first published in 1959 in The Shuttered Room and Other Pieces, a posthumous collection of Lovecraft's works. I can't find the exact book, there's a similarly-titled book on the Internet Archive but it doesn't contain Old Bugs. There is a copyright renewal from June 1987. There's a note on Wikisource suggesting that copyright will expire in 2055, I'm not sure the basis for that. But regardless, it seems to me that as of now the copyright is in effect. -Pete (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am sure that the mention on the author page here refers to the title story (which apparantly is more Derleth than Lovecraft). See discussion above about "The Mysterious Ship", which was also first published in that collection. The copyright on Derleth's work published in 1959 and covered by that renewal will expire in 2055. It seems that Derleth's heirs were probably not entitled to make the renewal on the pure Lovecraft items (and claiming that "H. P. Lovecraft" was a pseudonym of August Derleth wouldn't alter that). The wikipedia article on Lovecraft says "Searches of the Library of Congress have failed to find any evidence that these copyrights were renewed after the 28-year period, making it likely that these works are in the public domain. However, the Lovecraft literary estate, reconstituted in 1998 under Robert C. Harrall, has claimed that they own the rights." -- Beardo (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is it at Google books Google Books and it contains Old Bugs on pages 76-84. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for finding that MarkLSteadman.

The copyright situation seems complex, and I'm maybe only grasping parts of it. It seems the search mentioned at Wikipedia may have simply been insufficient to find the result I found, in which case it should be disregarded? The link may not work without re-running the search. I searched for "Shuttered Room" and scrolled through the results to find the "Derleth" entry. Its contents are pasted below:

Beardo: Your comment suggests to me that there's a somewhat delicate task of evaluating the legitimacy of (both?) Derleth's initial copyright claim, and the renewal. Is that correct? I'm not sure how to evaluate that, but want to make sure I'm at least understanding the question that needs answering. (Did Derleth really represent himself as having the name "H. P. Lovecraft," for the purpose of establishing copyright over something written by the original H. P. Lovecraft?? I'm not a lawyer, but the idea that such a maneuver could carry any legitimacy seems insane! But maybe I'm misunderstanding...) -Pete (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The book just says copyright Derleth without giving details. It was his children who claimed that Lovecraft was a pseudonym for Derleth on the renewal. I suppose that was possibly true for the stories which Derleth wrote from brief fragments, but not for the unpublished works. -- Beardo (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

So @Beardo: would you advise declaring this {{PD-US-unpublished}} with an explanation on the talk page that there was not a legal copyright attached prior to 2003? -Pete (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Based on my understanding of the publications, the works which are joint Derleth–Lovecraft works are copyrighted until 2055 because of the renewal of Derleth’s portion of the work; as joint authors, either of the two’s heirs could renew, and Derleth’s did. This renewal also covers the copyright in the collection &c. of the stories into the collection. However, if any of the works in The Shuttered Room were written only by Lovecraft, then those works were not renewed. They were copyrighted, however, and so the license tag should be PD-US-no-renewal. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Pete, Beardo (people in the discussion): I have ordered the book, and it has just come in. The book is credited to August Derleth as compiler with a copyright notice on the back of the title page saying as much. That page also lists copyrights for the six other works excluded in the renewal claim. The work includes (1) material co-authored by Lovecraft and Derleth, (2) works authored only by Lovecraft, (3) editorial material both explicitly and implicitly credited to Derleth, (4) several plates, and (5) a number of other writings about Lovecraft by other authors (neither Lovecraft nor Derleth). The renewal was by Derleth, and thus covers (1) and (3) (in addition to a compilation right in the entire work). The copyrights in (4) depends on who took the photographs, and thus cannot be determined without significant research. The copyrights in (5) would need to be renewed by the authors of those works pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(1)(C). The most difficult case is (2), which is of course the one which matters. That copyright is governed by 17 U.S.C. 304(a)(1)(B), which states in relevant part: “In the case of … any posthumous work … upon which the copyright was originally secured by the proprietor thereof … the proprietor of such copyright shall be entitled to a renewal ….” I do not believe that Derleth actually held the copyright at that time, so I do not believe that he had the right to renew them, either. In any case, I have scanned “Old Bugs” and can scan other parts of the book if desired. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The description of this page states: "As part of the United States Freedom of Information Act, this email's contents were released into the public domain, following a U.S. citizens request for it to be made public."

Now I am no expert on American law, but I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. According to this page, "Information provided in response to an FOI request or listed in Publication Schemes, may be subject to copyright protection. The supply of documents under FOI does not automatically give the person or organisation who receives the information a right to reuse the documents in a way that would infringe copyright."

It seems to me that this is a Green Eggs and Ham situation, and this document is copyvio.

Courtesy ping, @WeatherWriter: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Based on the U.S. Justice Department on the FOIA copyright guidelines, it seems like the U.S. Government conceals copyrighted information under Exemption 3 or 4, and info that isn’t exempt is published. I could be wrong on that. This was released by NOAA, under a NOAA URL. Per the NOAA disclaimer, “The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public.” Since this is hosted entirely on the NOAA web servers (www.noaa.gov…) & since it isn’t marked as being copyrighted, this would be in the public domain as far as I can tell. WeatherWriter (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note that per the discussion at [[Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Kamoliddin_Tohirjonovich_Kacimbekov's_statement]], this may not be hostable as a standalone work but only as a subwork of the whole 100 document release: https://www.noaa.gov/foia/reading-room/hurricane-dorian-related-records. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would argue this is different. For those, it appears there wasn’t a direct government disclaimer for it. Here, we have a direct statement that things hosted on their web servers/web sites are in the public domain unless specifically annotated otherwise. I do not see any clear annotations to the contrary, so this specific document would be PD. WeatherWriter (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah yes, but you see that document release is only a subwork of the whole NOAA website :p —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is a true fact. However, the disclaimer does not say whole works or whole NOAA website. Just that things hosted on the web servers and web sites are free to use. That is on the web servers of NOAA. No indication that only whole works are PD and not subpages by themselves. WeatherWriter (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry - this tangent about whether it's a subpage or a whole work has nothing to do with whether it's PD :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This seems like a good indication that this work is PD after all. We'll need to update the discussion page to say that it's PD because of this disclaimer, rather than because it was released under FOI. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@WeatherWriter hold up a sec — the disclaimer you linked to, applies to National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites, but the document in question is on the NOAA website, not the NWS website, so I don't see how it applies here. From what I can tell, the NWS is only a part of the NOAA, so I don't see how the NOAA website could be construed as a NWS web site. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Keep. The statement in the FOIA notice (as to copyright) is incorrect. However, Gibbs appears to be an employee; as an employee, her e-mail is a work of the U.S. government, and is in the public domain for that reason. As to the separate-work issue, the e-mail is one work (even though included in a longer FOIA release), and can be hosted separately for that reason. (In any case, that’s an issue for proposed deletions, not copyright discussions.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Although it looks as if written by an employee, it is not certain and I failed to find anything that would confirm that Cheryl Gibbs wrote the message in the course of employment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

A complaint in state court, not a judgment (in federal or state court) nor a document to which PD-USGov applies. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Per w:en:Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States there may not be copyright under California. MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure if we can keep a work based on this reasoning, and we do not have a proper licence tag for that anyway. Any more opinions? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Robert Howard novella, according to the description on the page, was initially published in the UK in 1937 and later in the US in 1966. It cites a Gutenburg AU project that presents works in the public domain in Australia. There is no copyright banner on the page, and while I may be missing some nuance, it's hard to see where it would have lapsed into the public domain under US law, which is necessary by Wikisource's copyright policy. -Pete (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The PG notice is not for A Gent from Bear Creek (novella), but A Gent from Bear Creek (short story), which is also a chapter of A Gent from Bear Creek (novella).

As published after 1963, it's not eligible for {{PD-no-renewal}}, but as this is wholly unsourced and I couldn't find a scan of it I can't check for {{PD-US-no-notice}}.

I'd say  Delete as we can't establish a certainty that this is PD. — Alien333 ( what I did &
why I did it wrong ) 12:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note: The short story (and possibly the others) may also need to be deleted. — Alien333 ( what I did &
why I did it wrong ) 14:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Delete. The book is a fix-up novella, containing original short stories adapted to form the chapter of a continuous narrative. All were previously published in magazines (most of them in Action Stories). Which means we have the copyright status of the original short stories (first publication) to contend with, where "was copyright transferred to the publisher"-type problems are in play, in addition to the new copyright for the (modified) versions in the 1937 fix-up novella. And just to add insult to injury this edition is so rare that there are only 11 copies known in private hands and 7 in libraries, so checking one for the presence or absence of a copyright notice is… challenging. The 1965 US edition is known to have a copyright page which also lists that as the "First American Edition", so it was not simultaneously published in the US.

ISFD is a great resource for researching Howard works. Here is the overview for the novel (including links to overviews for the individual stories). Here is the overview for the first edition. And here is the first US edition. Xover (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Xover: At least one of the British Isles libraries which owns it should be willing to send me a scan (of the copyright information); I’ve just sent for one. I’ll report back here once that happens. Hopefully it will have more detailed information on the original sources of the short stories. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Although this work was published by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (a US government institution), its author was not an employee of the US government, so I am unsure whether {{PD-USGov}} applies. I do not see any other rationale for this work being PD in the US. (The author, Sylvia L. Asa, at the time worked for the University of Toronto and for Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Delete: that USgov agency is only described as publisher, not author, so not PD. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 20:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Comment If this work is deleted, then the author page Author:Sylvia L. Asa should be deleted also, as well as the file File:Tumors of the pituitary gland.djvu on Commons. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Keep: The file was already discussed in Commons in 2020, see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tumors of the pituitary gland.djvu. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Some of the stories in this collection may still be copyrighted in the US. commons:COM:JAPAN#Terms says that works whose author died after 1945 were restored by the URAA, and several stories have such authors and were originally published after 1928. At a glance, these include:

• "Hydrangea" (published in 1931, author died in 1959)
• "Brother and Sister" (published in 1934, author died in 1962)
• "The Charcoal Bus" (published in 1952, author died in 1993)
• "Machine" (published in 1930, author died in 1947)
• "The Moon on the Water" (published in 1953, author died in 1972)
• "The Song Bird" (published in 1938, author died in 1959)

(not-yet-transcribed stories)

• "Morning Mist" (published in 1950, author died in 1990)
• "The Hateful Age" (published in 1947, author died in 2005)
• "Tokyo" (published in 1948, author died in 1951)
• "A Man's Life" (published in 1950, author died in 1972)
• "The Idiot" (published in 1946, author died in 1954)
• "Shotgun" (published in 1949, author died in 1991)
• "A Visitor" (published in 1946, author died in 1948)
• "The Priest of Shiga Temple and His Love" (published in 1954, author died in 1970)

Prospectprospekt (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Could you look closer at this? The collection was published in the UK, so lack of renewal would seem to be irrelevant. Did you find evidence that it was simultaneously published in the US? And while if the translations into English are all by Morris they might conceivably be PD with the collection, the originals (whether Japanese or English) were clearly not first published in this collection. In other words, I don't see by what path these could be public domain. Xover (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The specfic edition is clearly a pre 1928 US edition. However, I'm not on doing a little reading convinced it's suitable for hosting on Commons. The author wrote this in Ireland in 1900, The author of the text died in 1960. Applying a standard 70 year term, this may still be in copyright outside the US until 2030. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ShakespeareFan00: To the best of my knowledge, the book was first published in the USA in New York in 1900 by an American publisher and the nationality of the author doesn't matter per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom ("A work, other than a broadcast, can qualify for copyright protection in either of two ways: by the nationality of the author, or by the country of first publication. [...] However, a work made before 1 June 1957, can only qualify for copyright protection by its country of first publication; not by the author's nationality. [...] If a work is first published in only one country, which is a party to the Berne Convention, then that is the country of origin. [...] If two or more Berne Convention countries qualify, and not all of them are in the EEA (such as Canada, the US, or Australia), then the Berne Convention country with the shortest applicable copyright term determines the copyright term within the UK, if it is shorter than the normal term for such work under UK law.")

But I'm not a lawyer, so feel free to correct me. That said, it might have been a better idea to find and proofread the 1900 edition. --Ssvb (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, County Donegal is not a part of the UK, now I'm not so sure anymore. Seumas MacManus seems to be categorized as a British author on Wikidata. --Ssvb (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ireland is complicated. From 1800 to 1922, all of Ireland was under UK governance, but at the end of 1922 five-sixth of Ireland gained independence. See w:History of Ireland (1801–1923) for more information. So, when the book was published, MacManus was a UK author, but by 1923, he was no longer a UK author. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ShakespeareFan00, @EncycloPetey: Since the copyright situation is obscure for the non-lawyer folks like us (MacManus even relocated to the USA before 1922 and probably was an American citizen by that time), can we just move the djvu file from Commons to Wikisource and be done with that? --Ssvb (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

1990 Academic thesis. No indication author was a federal employee. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Author was at the Naval Academy, received a commission before [1] and served as an engineering officer in the navy [2] after. In theory he could have resigned his commission, paid back the tuition etc. attended graduate school and then joined afterwards, I am sure someone can find his service records to confirm, but I suspect he was serving in the Navy at the time. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That's the confirmation I need. Can you bookmark that resource for checking other NPS documents? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

1930 publication of UK origin. - This is to recent to automatically apply a PD-US tag. The file as uploaded has no licence information. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

For our purposes, it's clearly a US work; see the top of the cover. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html lists every periodical that was first published before 1950 and renewed; it doesn't list this one, so it wasn't renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This book was published in France, and is under copyright in that country until 2034, so the file will need to be localized to Wikisource until then. The copy on Commons violates their rules. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete on Commons, as we only care about the copyright status in the United States. Per c:COM:HIRTLE, the work is 100% in American PD.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

When we do that, it will disappear from Wikisource too, because it is currently on Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see. I'm not sure if the French copyright term of 70 years p.m.a (per c:COM:FRANCE) is retroactive, because if it is not then it should enter French public domain at 58 years p.m.a. (i.e. 2021, 1963+58). I left a question on Common's VPC. If the question is negative then probably I'll try to move the file here and start a deletion request on Commons.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

All the EU extensions were retroactive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

As @user:Beleg Tâl, noticed, and I am also confused about this publication's license to be considered in public domain Diamonds To Sit On.

This book is universally known as The twelve chairs.. and is also faithfully recreated comedy film by Mel Brooks. This title was published earlier in English.

The two books are identical. It's possible that this publication was to circumvent the then existing copyright laws? — ineuw (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not getting the problem. The underlying work was published in 1928 by authors who died more than 74 years ago, and thus are out of copyright in Russia and the US. They were also Soviet works, and the Soviet Union had no foreign copyright treaties until the 1950s.

So we're looking at the English translation, and I don't see any evidence that any translation was published under the name The Twelve Chairs until John H. C. Richardson's translation in 1961. HathiTrust doesn't have their copy visible, but https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007116969 is the earliest copy they have, and it's the same 1930 work published in the US, for which there's no copyright renewal. I don't know how this was circumventing any then-existing copyright law.

If someone can show an earlier publication or a renewal I somehow missed, then maybe it's still under copyright for a couple years, but it looks clear to me.

(And Twelve Chairs/12 стульев was a movie by famed director Leonid Gaidai. It even has more ratings on IMDB than the Mel Brooks adaptation, even given the IMDB's English bias.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will remove the notices from the author pages. — ineuw (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ineuw you can't remove the {{no license}} tag from the author pages, without adding a valid license tag! —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Beleg Tâl What do you mean by a license tag on the author`s page? Do you mean the copyright license? Isn't it the wrong place? — ineuw (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the copyright tag, {{PD-US}} or {{PD-old}} or whatever. You forgot to add one when you removed {{no license}}. It looks like they have been fixed now. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

My knowledge of current Author page requirements is very limited. The numerous updates to contributions I made prior to the past decade were made by User:Billinghurst, and other editors. — ineuw (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I scanned in the book and so did some bibliographic research with respect to it. It is at least in the public domain in the United States. The original text was published in 1928, and so is in the public domain owing to age. The 1930 translation was not renewed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The text is a translation of the Civil Code of Cambodia by Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). While Cambodian law are in public domain (cf. c:COM:Cambodia), the English translations are, according to JICA's site policy, copyrighted and all rights reserved (with reproduction prohibited as well). The texts are therefore clear copyright violations and should be deleted.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Associated pages: Civil Code of Cambodia/B1, Civil Code of Cambodia/B2.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

If this translation exceeds the threshold of originality, then do we have proof of authorized publication in the United States within 30 days of publication in China? Some of the Yangs' translations were published in the US by Cameron Associates in Chosen Pages From Lu Hsun, but we don't know when exactly that was published and if publication was authorized, especially since I've heard that the US didn't have copyright relations with China around the time of the Cultural Revolution? Prospectprospekt (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Pngleee: might be able to answer. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are parts of the book by Japanese authors who died after 1945, which means the URAA would have restored their copyright, as Japan was life + 50 at the time. There's even authors like Author:Yaso Saijō, who died in 1970, and since Japan became a life+70 country, are still in copyright until 2040. Those authors would need to be removed to keep what's left. Prosfilaes (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

PS: Unless it could somehow be the case that any of those challenged poems were published in Japanese before 1929? SnowyCinema (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah. But that's going to be very hard. Looking at w:ja:西條八十 with Google Translate, it seems that Songs for Children Sung in Japan/Mr. Moon and maybe Songs for Children Sung in Japan/Canary are old enough, but who knows about the rest?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Keep. The Japanese text is published in this book, which means that that text is also PD-US-no-renewal. Absent specific evidence to the contrary—which should always be the basis of a deletion discussion—this must be kept. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • The volume we have is printed by The Hokuseido Press, in Occupied Japan. https://discovernikkei.org/en/journal/2022/10/26/yukuo-uyehara-1/ is the one source I can find on the net for Yukuo Uyehara, which makes it clear he was domiciled in the US (so the URAA wouldn't have restored his work) and "In March 1940, Uyehara published his first book, with Hokuseido Press of Japan. Titled Songs for Children: Sung in Japan, the book consisted of a collection of fifty “doyo,” or Japanese children’s songs, that were popularly sung in Japanese classrooms at the time." So the book was printed in Japan and these songs were previously published works, so this book would have minimal impact on their copyright status.
  • No, we shouldn't accept foreign works just because nobody has enough knowledge of the foreign language to look up information about the texts. If we have no information, we should at the very least assume the most likely.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Prosfilaes: So you’re admitting you don’t have any evidence that any part of this work is copyrighted? If so, you have no reason to start this discussion. The songs were all printed by Hokuseido in this book; that is evidence of a publication. Insofar as you have not shown any earlier publication, “we should at the very least assume” that Songs for Children Sung in Japan is the first publication of the songs. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
      • If we assume that, the works of Japanese authors published in Japan in Songs for Children Sung in Japan were restored by the URAA unless they were out of copyright in Japan at the time. These authors weren't out of copyright in Japan at the time, and some of them aren't out of copyright in Japan now.
      • And the standard of Wikimedia projects has never been just assume it's out of copyright until someone hits us over the head with it. For example, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-old-assumed doesn't just assume that every work created more than 70 years ago is out of copyright in life+70; it's not impossible that 120 years from creation is too short for a certain work, but that length of time has been chosen as a reasonable assumption.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
        • “If we assume that, the works of Japanese authors published in Japan in Songs for Children Sung in Japan were restored by the URAA unless they were out of copyright in Japan at the time.” This is not true; the work was published in the United States and not renewed, so those songs which were first published in Songs for Children Sung in Japan are in the public domain for failure to renew. The URAA cannot restore an American copyright, after all. For the most part “assumptions” are based on a lack of initial information. But here, there is basic information; we have one publication, and it’s old enough to be presumed to be the first publication (that is, it’s not an Internet copy but a physical book). I don’t understand how you think it’s then reasonable to assume against this evidence, especially as you have repeatedly stated that you have no evidence to support your assumption (whereas I of course have the book I scanned as evidence in support of my view). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
          • Page:Songs for Children Sung in Japan.djvu/10 says "Printed in occupied Japan". See above, where I pointed out the 1940 copy was printed by "Hokuseido Press of Japan". It was not published in the US.
          • You can presume anything. But multiauthor collections are usually of preexisting material, and I can not remember, and I can not imagine, any collection of translations that aren't translated from preexisting material. Why would someone? First-run rights cost more than reprints, and you get your choice of a lot more material going for reprints. And we certainly shouldn't assume the improbable happened.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
            • The location of printing is irrelevant. This volume was printed for sale in Japan and Hawaii, and thus was published in the United States for the purposes of U.S. copyright law. Once again, this volume was not only the translation but also the original texts. Without any evidence (which you have not provided) of an earlier printing, we should not “presume” that such a printing exists. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
              • Where's your proof it was printed for sale in Hawaii? This does not seem like you care about the facts of the matter as much as getting the book in.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
                • It says so in the colophon. It even has an American price ($1.50). Could you do a modicum of research before you nominate my hard for work deletion? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
                  • Where does it say that? What does it say? Link, copy, paste. I can't find any such thing. Yes, the 1949 version has an American price. That was published nine years after the book was first published in 1940, so that doesn't matter at all.
                  • This is a 1940 work published in Japan with texts that were previously published in Japan by Japanese authors (see above for Yaso Saijō's Mr. Moon, for example). Why don't you do enough research to establish that it's actually in the public domain?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
                    • What are you even talking about? The book is my evidence: it was published in the United States, and there was no renewal. That is my basic evidence which establishes that this book is in the public domain. You, however, have provided no evidence that the book is not in the public domain—only speculation. I have pointed this out before in this discussion, and yet you have repeatedly refused to provide any evidence in support of your claim. I can’t refute your claims because you haven’t provided any evidence to support them. Just as you say, without evidence, that the book is copyrighted, I can refute your claim by simply stating, with as much evidence as you gave me, that it is not copyrighted. I have already provided evidence to support my initial claim, that the book is not copyrighted; and I am happy to dispute your counter-claims on equal grounds. But I cannot try to oppose your claim with evidence, when you have provided no evidence in support of your claim in the first place. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
                      • You shouldn't be trying to oppose my claim. You should be trying to establish the facts of the matter. That you do treat this as a debate makes me question whether you would conceal or even falsify evidence to keep the book in Wikisource.
                      • When were the poems originally published? I've done some work above and found evidence that at least two poems were published outside this book. This confirms my assumption that the poems weren't first published in this volume. You just want to assume they were.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

About the poems/songs. I found one where it (and the music) was published at jp.wikipedia. It was a challenge to find these songs, heck, even the authors have that thing where sometimes they go by Given Family (name) or maybe Family Given (also name). The book has been set up so that when jp.wikisource wants to, they can fill in the jp pages and perhaps also help to research the original publications. Page:Songs for Children Sung in Japan.djvu/82 had an image. Page:Songs for Children Sung in Japan.djvu/80 is set up to be proofed at jp.wikisource. {{iwpage}}. It was a miracle I found this.

Songs for Children Sung in Japan/Tapping of Shoes

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%9D%B4%E3%81%8C%E9%B3%B4%E3%82%8B--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• The more this “discussion” drags on, the more clearly you act in bad faith. “You shouldn't be trying to oppose my claim”, you say: why not? Are we not supposed to have adversarial discussions, with different people holding different opinions? Or are we supposed to roll over and delete whatever you don’t like, without asking questions? You mention “trying to establish the facts”, and I agree that that is a valid goal; in fact, I have been trying to get you to establish your facts for quite some time now. I am personally in favor of hosting as much public domain material as possible, and frequently contribute to discussions here in an effort to save works which would otherwise be deleted; but I have contributed to a number of discussions where I was the one to find the single piece of evidence which confirmed that the work was copyrighted, and which, but for my action, may not have been deleted. Your accusing me of hiding or falsifying evidence is unconscionable. As to your question of first publication, I have provided my evidence, but you have not provided yours; but there’s no reason for me to belabor this point, as you presumably have no evidence to bolster your unsupported attacks (or you would have shown that evidence the last several times I asked you). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• No, we are not supposed to have adversarial discussions. People can have different opinions and both be trying to get to the truth, not trying to oppose each other.
• Fact: these poems are Japanese works by Japanese authors. RaboKarbakian linked a page that shows the poem was "first appeared in the November 1919 issue of the magazine Shojo -go ."; that is, these poems were published before the book. I don't think that it's reasonable to demand I do bibliographic research in Japanese to prove a poem is copyrighted in the US; if you want to keep the poems, prove they were out of copyright in Japan in 1996 (i.e. the author died before 1946) or they were first published before 1929.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

commons:Category:Winnie The Pooh, 1926 the illustrator is not in Britain's public domain yet, but because this book was published in the United States, the images are as PD as the book is. I am pretty sure that the same would be true for the poets who have poems in this book.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Commons and the English Wikisource have different rules. Any book published in 1926 is in the public domain in the US; even if Winnie the Pooh was only published in the UK, it would still be in the public domain in the US, and acceptable for the English Wikisource, but not for Commons. These poems weren't first published in this book, and as they were works by Japanese authors published in Japan, they get a full 95 years of copyright from publication. Retroactively, only US works needed renewal, and since these aren't US works, renewal is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Keep. The book was published in the U.S. in 1949, and copyright was not renewed. --FPTI (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Keep. The book was published in the U.S. in 1949, and copyright was not renewed."--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is a concern by Wound theology at Talk:Max Headroom signal hijacking of WTTW: The copyright template here notes that the source was "legally published within the United States" but the definition of legally published is clearly not applicable here: Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending [...] A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jan.Kamenicek: This ideally should be sent to Commons to sort out there, because really it should be deleted everywhere if it's deleted here. SnowyCinema (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Started that deletion discussion: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Max Headroom broadcast intrusion.webm. Please take further comments there. SnowyCinema (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Xeverything11 proposed deletion of files used on Wikisource; at closer inspection, even the document itself is not free. It's not the work of the US government, or a judicial decision; it's the work of Nintendo of America and its lawyers. It is not in any way released on a free license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

See also c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nintendo of America Inc. v. Tropic Haze LLC.djvu.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Following the previous nominations of Index:Property and Improperty.djvu and Confessions of an Economic Heretic, I am adding more:

• Index:L. T. Hobhouse, His Life and Work.pdf (1931)
• Index:Poverty in Plenty.djvu (1931)
• Index:Veblen (Hobson).pdf (1936)
• Index:Imperialism, A Study.djvu (1938)
• Index:Essays in Science and Philosophy.djvu (1948)
• Index:Adventures of Ideas.djvu + Adventures of Ideas (1933)
• Index:Nature and Life (1934).pdf + Nature and Life (1934)

-- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Imperialism has 1902 and 1905 editions, which could be substituted. Essays in Science and Philosophy and Adventures of Ideas were simultaneously published in the United States, and both were renewed. Nature and Life was actually first published in the United States; our copy is a later (British) re-print. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks! So Nature and Life should be eligible to be hosted here as not renewed in the US. Unfortunately, the 1938 edition of Imperialism contains a long chapter Introduction to the 1938 edition, due to which it is not possible to host this scan here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to the note in the header, the translation is supposed to be done by the Association for Participatory Democracy, so the source is most probably http://www.e-democracy.md/en/legislation/constitution/ . However, at the bottom of the web page there is copyright claimed, only with a note that "Reproduction of the materials is welcomed provided the source is indicated", which is not enough to consider it released under some of our accepted licences. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Index:Radclyffe Hall - The Well of Loneliness.pdf

First published by Jonathon Cape, London and Paris. The author, Radclyffe Hall, a brit, died in 1943. This has been given the 95 years United States license, but I find no evidence of publication in the United States before the 1950s.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter when it was published in the US; works first published anywhere more than 95 years ago are in the public domain in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Per this, it was registered in the US in 1928 anyways.. https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/catalog/R173233 see also Google Books . MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

So far as I can tell, this translation was first published in 1967. The source, “Marx-Engels Collected Works Volume 1”, was published in 1975. Presumably the 1902 publication was the first publication of the thesis in the German, but I cannot find a publication in the English from that time. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply