Wikisource:COPYVIO
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days. For the archive overview, see /Archives. |
Petitioner's status report, Majid Khan, July 17, 2008
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Deleted; public domain status not proven.
Petition by Gitanjali S. Gutierrez. She is an attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York–based nonprofit organization. So I do not think that this was made by a federal government employee as part of their official duties. SnowyCinema (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2026 (UTC) ZALITA v. BUSH, AL QAHTANI v. BUSH, OTHMAN v. BUSH, MAJID KHAN v. BUSH: Notice of Joinder
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Deleted; although there is some disagreement about its copyright status, there is consensus that the work is not within scope of WS
I did mark this as {{PD-ineligible}} a little while ago, but looking at it again, I think it's borderline. And honestly, a page like this isn't super useful to begin with. So, I think it's probably better to just delete it to be on the safe side. (Made by the same private attorney as above so not a federal government work.) SnowyCinema (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete, but not on copyright grounds. This is undoubtedly ineligible; it is a rote legal recitation. However, there is no real use for it, so it should be deleted on that ground. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete. The sentence that begins "Undersigned counsel..." can IMO be considered quite original and sort of creative, which would mean that it is copyrighted. If not, then it should be deleted anyway per TE(æ)A,ea. above, because "Wikisource ... exists to archive the free artistic and intellectual work" (quoting from WS:WWI). If we denied its creativity, then it would be neither artistic nor intellectual. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2026 (UTC) File:Signed complaint mangione - arrest photo.jpg
Deleted on Commons as a work of an American subnational government instead of the federal one. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Luigi Mangione and c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests § File:Signed complaint mangione - arrest photo.jpg. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. I have trouble seeing the copyrightable subject matter here. The guy who took the photograph didn’t design the building, or lay out the interior; Mangione picked his outfit that day, not the photographer; and nothing of the composition of the shot is unique (at least that I can see). Just because someone took a photograph doesn’t automatically imbue that photograph with a copyright; there has to be some sort of creative choice beforehand to justify it. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Luigi Mangione. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- (nice job, Whyiseverythingalreadyused, you just repeated yourself) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- Whyiseverythingalreadyused: That is a very long discussion. Did any comment in it address my point? I looked over it quickly, and the only arguments that I could find assumed the copyrightability of the works at issue (which may not have even included this image). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- (nice job, Whyiseverythingalreadyused, you just repeated yourself) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- @TE(æ)A,ea.: why would you want it to be locally hosted on Wikisource and also have an upload on Commons at the same time? Howardcorn33 (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- Through long experience, I don’t have faith in Commons not deleting things incorrectly. So, if I upload a new work of some sort, I’ll usually keep local images to avoid having to deal with them. I didn’t upload the PDF (someone else did, at Commons), but I did create the images. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Luigi Mangione. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete: Photographs have copyright. In Switzerland, this would clearly be a simple photo, under the separate rules for such things, but the US lumps them all in as photos. It's a terribly thin copyright, but it exists.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Prosfilaes. One can (quite reasonably) disagree that photos like this should be protected, but there's no doubt that they are whether we like it or not. Xover (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
International Women's Day (1925)
This particular translation is from Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1954. As it was published in Moscow, I believe the translation would have been URAA'd. SnowyCinema (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
The Evening Telegraph and Post/1934/Famous architect dead: Sir Harold Brakspear
1934 newspaper article from Dundee, Scotland. As a UK work it would've been URAA'd (pub + 70 = 2004, not 1996), unless it meets {{PD-ineligible}}. This one sits right at the border at a place I'm not necessarily surefire on for {{PD-ineligible}} to apply, so I think we should consider deleting it to be safe. SnowyCinema (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Donald Trump and Elon Musk Deliver Remarks to the Press from the Oval Office
This work is ascribed to Donald Trump and Elon Musk in the header. However, Elon Musk does not seem to have contributed and Donald Trump is the author of only a small part of the text–most of it is by journalists Rick Santelli and Joe Kernen (in the text misspelled as Joe Kiernan). Therefore it does not seem to fall under the PD-USGov licence. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment Is there a possibility that this does not count as prepared speech in Santelli and Kernen's parts? SnowyCinema (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- What's there so far seems to be mostly off-the-cuff remarks, even though Santelli seems to have had notes and talking points he referenced. But I would also say this particular text is low-value, incomplete, and if completed will have prepared remarks from multiple participants. Sorting out which parts have which provenance (and hence copyright status) is going to be near-impossible (and probably very subjective). I'd say the only safe choice is nuking it. Xover (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
A clash of steel, a thud of hoofs
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:
Proven to be in the public domain.
First published in 2007, meaning as a posthumous work published after 2003, it's not in the public domain. Nighfidelity (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Surely if it was first published after 2003, it is copyright until 70 years pma, so it came into public domain in 2007 ? -- Beardo (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- After 2002, it became 70 year pma, so yes, this is public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, thanks for the info! Nighfidelity (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- After 2002, it became 70 year pma, so yes, this is public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Translations of Omar Khadr Letter to his Mother and Omar Khadr Letter to his Mother II
No information about the translation is provided, and as such licensing cannot be confirmed. They might be user-translated. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)