archive-org.com » ORG » W » WIKISOURCE.ORG

Total: 1648

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Wikisource:What is Wikisource? - Wikisource, the free online library
    are Source texts previously published by any author Translations of original texts Historical documents of national or international interest Bibliographies of authors whose works are in Wikisource Contributions are not limited to this list of course Some basic criteria for texts excluded from Wikisource are Copyright infringements Original writings by a contributor to the project Mathematical data formulae and tables Source code for computers Statistical source data such as election results These are just the most basic obvious things that are excluded from Wikisource There may of course be other things excluded by policy or convention For more information please see What Wikisource includes Languages and translations edit Wikisource is a multilingual project Texts and translations of texts are welcome in all languages at the appropriate subdomains and at the general wikisource org wiki This English wiki is for Source texts originally in English English translations of source texts in other languages Parallel source with translations into English It is important to link and classify texts and translations so that they will be as accessible as possible to everybody For information on languages and translations please see Wikisource Translations and return Wikisource and other Wikimedia projects edit Wikisource or Wikibooks edit The distinction between these two projects is relatively easy Wiki source focuses on material published elsewhere Wikisource can be viewed as a library of public domain works Wiki books are instructional materials written by the contributors themselves e g study guides classroom textbooks and annotated texts for classroom use The area of annotations to source texts is a gray area with some legitimate overlap between Wikisource and Wikibooks For guidelines on this see the information pages on the topic at both projects Wikisource Annotations Wikibooks Annotated texts Wikisource or Wikipedia edit While Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Wikisource is a library Wikipedia contains articles about books while Wikisource includes the book itself To some extent both may include bibliographical material about the author Protecting pages edit The wiki pages on most Wikimedia projects are designed to evolve forever Typical examples are Wikipedia articles or Wikibooks study guides By contrast Wikisource is a library of static texts that have already been published elsewhere In many or most cases these texts are not meant to change and evolve and it would deeply hurt their integrity if they did Therefore Wikisource has adopted a policy of noting text quality and protecting pages from editing once they are thought to be correctly formatted and error free Comments about needed changes or corrections can always be made on the talk page and if necessary the page can be unprotected In this way Wikisource is more similar to Wikinews which protects the pages in its news archives for historical integrity For more information please see Wikisource Protection policy NPOV edit Shortcut WS NPOV WS POV WS Neutral WS Neutrality See also meta Neutral point of view N eutral P oint o f V iew NPOV is a major policy followed by most but not all projects

    Original URL path: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Neutrality (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Editing Wikisource:What is Wikisource? (section) - Wikisource, the free online library
    of copyright please see Wikisource Copyright policy Wikisource Possible copyright violations a place to list suspected violations Summary By clicking the Save page button you are agreeing to the Terms of Use the Privacy Policy and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY SA 3 0 License and the GFDL You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license Cancel

    Original URL path: https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:What_is_Wikisource%3F&action=edit§ion=9 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Wikisource:Copyright policy - Wikisource, the free online library
    or share alike which requires that derivative works remain free Such works may be included in a copyrighted work but may not themselves be restricted in the same way as the larger document Fair use edit Fair use or fair dealing is the concept that unlicensed copyrighted work can be legally used without paying licensing fees or receiving permission of the copyright holder see Wikipedia s article on fair use Fair use is explicitly prohibited on Wikisource As described by the Amount and substantiality clause reproducing whole works is not fair use See the legal precedent set in Harper Row v Nation Enterprises 1985 as stated by Wikipedia s article on the subject the US Supreme Court determined that fair use is not a defense to the appropriation of work by a famous political figure simply because of the public interest in learning of that political figure s account of an historic event Further the use of less than 400 words from President Ford s memoir by a political opinion magazine was interpreted as infringement because those few words represented the heart of the book and were as such substantial Contributors rights and obligations edit All works on Wikisource must be in the public domain or released under a license compatible with the free content definition It is the responsibility of the contributor to assert compatibility with Wikisource s license A template should be used on the source material page to indicate the licence that the source material is posted under see Help Copyright tags Translations or recordings of a source work edit Translations or recordings of a source work are considered derivative works of that source material The contributor thereby warrants that the original material and the derivative work are either in the public domain or released under a license compatible with the free content definition It is the responsibility of the contributor to assert compatibility with Wikisource s license A template should be used on the source material page to indicate the licence that the source material is posted under see Help Copyright tags Failure to conform to this policy will result in the deletion of the text If a contributor deliberately persists in violating this policy their editing access may be revoked Original works including translations edit Original works including translations placed on Wikisource are automatically licensed under the CC BY SA unless explicitly licensed otherwise With this license the copyright holder retains copyright and can later republish and relicense the works in any way they like However the work will be released under the CC BY SA forever Miscellaneous original content such as on user or discussion pages is also automatically released under the CC BY SA Linking to copyrighted works edit Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else s copyright If it is please do not link to the page Copyright violations

    Original URL path: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Copyright_policy (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Wikisource:Copyright discussions - Wikisource, the free online library
    only this status is taken in account to detect US copyright status To keep track on any changes of copyright laws of all countries including Russia is not an easy task such job is not productive to be carried on by en wikisource users if considering to watch Russian laws only or laws of some selected countries including Russia and to ignore all others coutries there are not any reasons to do so because there are no countries being so privileged to get special care for their copyright laws Even if any volunteers e g of Russia s nationals might be found which would watch all changes being made in Russian laws and update the template timely even in that case I think that the content of the template should be cut to contain the laws enacted on URAA date only Because the set of Russian laws on URAA date is more simple and the succeeding Russian laws have made the things to be more complicated also a user would be ought to somehow distinguish which laws were applicable on the URAA date and which were not in the case when all the current Russian laws were included in the template and the user were in need to evaluate real copyright status according to template text Keeping URAA date enacted laws only would make much more easy for any en wikisource user to evaluate whether some particular work of Russian descent is not falsely tagged by PD Russia template when it is used on the page of that work Also I think a special note could be added at the end of PD Russia a note alike indicating to a reader of the template text that real Russian copyright status of the work might be changed from PD because it is known that some changes have passed to Russian copyright laws after URAA date and also special proposal may be added for users of specific interest to Russia s copyright status to refer to the Russian Civil code in order to exactly determine if they want whether this work currently is in PD in Russia or not Nigmont talk 21 01 26 March 2015 UTC My apologies to all the community because I might bring someone to confusion though I had get confused myself before recently I found that the sentences about using rehabilitation date as the basis were already present in the Russian Federation law 09 07 1993 5351 1 article 27 I just missed that phrase when I looked through the text and the circumstance that the point about rehabilitation was not mentioned in the old version of the template also added to my confusion So it becomes that the rehabilitation usage in Russian copyright laws was already in force on URAA date it was 1 1 1996 and that law was applied since 09 07 1993 and should be accounted in the restoration of copyright of USSR published works in the US Nigmont talk 22 44 3 June 2015 UTC Brundtland Report edit Per Commons apparently saying PD UN isn t in fact a free license Commons Commons Deletion requests Template PD UN This also applies to subpages and the underlying pages used for the Transclusion ShakespeareFan00 talk 23 36 18 December 2014 UTC moved from WS PD billinghurst sDrewth 14 41 28 December 2014 UTC This work predates Prior to 17 September 1987 just so would be okay with regard to the situation I would say that rather than fuss the work we need to review the overarching then revisit the works with the licence billinghurst sDrewth 14 46 28 December 2014 UTC Someone care to create OPL3 and curate edit I see that the UKGov is now up to OPL3 and we are still at OPL1 http www parliament uk site information copyright open parliament licence If someone has the time it would be great if we could do a review of our licensing in that space and see what is the the best means to have our licences We may wish to disamigbuate our licenses or just update or build some redundancy into the existing template for the versions that we need billinghurst sDrewth 00 42 31 December 2014 UTC Tolstoy on Pascal edit The work seems to be part of the Complete Works of Tolstoy Tolstoi Tolstoï see work talk page though the volume is not metioned I have been unable to determine which vol though it states that it was published after 1923 though not whether it is a first or later edition It would be great if someone caould work out which vol the work came billinghurst sDrewth 15 48 9 January 2015 UTC The reference for the text Pascal is The complete works of Lyof N Tolstoï Patriotism Slavery of our times General articles New York Carlton House 1928 pages 382 390 copyright 1899 Thomas Y Crowell Co copyright 1927 Nathan Haskell Dole published 1928 Thomas Y Crowell Printed in the United States of America There is no mention of any volume although indicated as The complete works It is written on the cover of the blue book Tolstoi s essays on life with the golden image of a man like the thinker by Rodin on a red background and World s great thinkers AB Qc unsigned comment by 24 50 79 184 talk The copyright of 1927 is the relevant component for Dole s translations who died 1935 We need to know whether the work s copyright was renewed or not as being copyright after 1923 makes it a different beast The translations of Crowell that were published prior to 1923 with the 1899 works are in the public domain it is the post 1899 works in the edition that have the other date billinghurst sDrewth 00 20 10 January 2015 UTC I can see the work here though cannot see a full text from here search for renewals of Dole for Tolsto which doesn t show any particular result though shows other works by Dole of Tolstoi s billinghurst sDrewth 01 03 10 January 2015 UTC I can also see a copy of the work at Hathi Trust If we think that it is not copyright a copy would be useful so that the this chapter of the work can be moved in situ billinghurst sDrewth 01 20 10 January 2015 UTC If this remark from the preface p viii may help The translations in the present volume are due to several hands but a large number of them have been made by Mr Aylmer Maude of England who was a personal friend of Count Tostoï s and has been for years in immediate touch with his industrial religious and social activities Many of the articles thus furnished have been from sources otherwise unattainable N D H Thus Alymer Maude could be the translator of Pascal 1906 AB Qc Letter to the Youth in Europe and North America edit The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived Kept as PD Iran Jusjih talk 01 01 12 February 2016 UTC The text is copied verbatim from 2 as part of an Iranian propaganda drive by Khamenei supporters Anders Feder talk 10 47 16 February 2015 UTC Comment On the one hand Propaganda isn t a problem per se it s still a valid document and I created Category Propaganda a while ago for things like this On the other hand the text is definitely taken from the stated website and I can t find any copyright release information I expect the author intended it to be released but this is another case where they haven t made it explicit On the gripping hand PD Iran should apply Iranian copyright is not recognised under US law making any Iranian text automatically PD as far as Wikisource is concerned AdamBMorgan talk 13 49 16 February 2015 UTC The PD Iran thing is surprising Wasn t aware of it Anders Feder talk 21 52 16 February 2015 UTC It isn t used much I only found out when I noticed Ali Khamenei already has an author page and another work on the project AdamBMorgan talk 14 26 18 February 2015 UTC It seems that the text was first distributed on Twitter see w To the Youth in Europe and North America Distribution on Twitter is either not publication at all publication in the United States where Twitter is hosted or publication in all countries where Twitter is hosted In either case PD Iran is not applicable You can only use PD Iran if it was first published in Iran and not published outside Iran within 30 days after publication in Iran You can t use PD Iran for unpublished material Stefan2 talk 12 51 18 February 2015 UTC I m not sure if it would count as distributed on Twitter as it is a lot more than 140 characters although it could have been cut into pieces The corresponding wikipedia article says Khamenei released the letter on his official website and promoted by a Twitter account attributed to him That sounds like it was just a link If true the publication would have been on the official website presumably but not necessarily located in Iran The 30 day re publication provision would be the main issue From googling the send sentence it looks like CNN published on their website the next day also the Wikisource page in question was within the 30 day time frame albeit slightly later on the 15th February NB I ve amended the template to include this point AdamBMorgan talk 14 26 18 February 2015 UTC Neither CNN nor Wikisource would count as publications as they were done without consent of the author I think that the law would be interpreted as basically making it unpublished for 30 days from first publication in Iran unless a publication in a Berne Convention country intervened Prosfilaes talk 18 27 18 February 2015 UTC Fair enough I misread the document In that case based on this fairly obscure bit of copyright law Keep AdamBMorgan talk 21 55 24 February 2015 UTC Would distribution on the Internet count as publication in the first place Under Swedish law distribution on the Internet doesn t constitute publication as publication is associated with the distribution of copies whereas Internet distribution works differently United States law also bases its definition of publication on distribution of copies If distribution on the Internet isn t publication then the document may be unpublished You can only use PD Iran for published material Stefan2 talk 18 32 4 March 2015 UTC I don t think distribution on the Internet necessarily counts differently certainly any case where someone pays money to download a copy would be publication I believe and I think releasing something under a CC license would be an offering of copies to people to a group of people for further distribution However I do think that there is a case for much Internet writings to be treated as public performance and not publication The Copyright Office punts on it copyright gov circs circ66 pdf and leaves it up to the person registering copyright http www mediainstitute org IPI 2011 062811 php quotes Kernal Records OY v Moseley as making the US the country of first publication for anything published on the net basically obliterating PD Iran though that article is quite critical of the case Prosfilaes talk 15 58 5 March 2015 UTC OK so this is either unpublished or something which was published in every country in which the Internet is accessible In the event that this is unpublished then it is copyrighted as the United States provides copyright for unpublished works from any country In the event that this is published then it is copyrighted in the United States as it was published in the United States Stefan2 talk 19 16 11 March 2015 UTC When you get down to it electronic copies are made all the time when accessing works over the Internet I m pretty sure it counts as published As for the simultaneous publication thing that is harder and I don t think the law or the Berne Convention really deals with it I think it was even discussed at a Berne working group with no real resolution and I think I ve seen reference to a couple U S court cases one which decided such works were published simultaneously in all countries in the world thus qualifying as a U S work and requiring the authors to follow the rules of U S authors to file a copyright lawsuit and the other case went the other way Note that actual distribution is not required for U S publication the simple offer to distribute qualifies Carl Lindberg talk 08 43 26 March 2015 UTC As I said you can put a work on the net and file a copyright registration for it as an unpublished work As long as they aren t taking a stand on it I m not comfortable being pretty sure about the matter Prosfilaes talk 14 35 26 March 2015 UTC That is a fair point it may matter in what circumstances it is on the internet personal home page or widely known page etc The Copyright Office does not need to determine publication or not in this situation so they don t if you register something for copyright you can specify whether it is considered published or not It has come up in court cases though so judges have had to rule mainly on country of publication so I don t think that publication itself was in doubt in those cases given the wide availability One is the case you mention and the other which ruled the opposite way was Moberg v 33T this link has references and quotes of both decisions The Moberg case ruled that it was not simultaneous publication which avoided the need to determine if it was publication which they note is not settled law However the purpose of a propaganda drive is typically to reach as many people as possible and I think it would be pretty hard in this case to claim it was unpublished The Berne Convention states The expression published works means works published with the consent of their authors whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public having regard to the nature of the work If the work is available on the Internet and advertised as such that is probably enough for at least the Berne definition But true there probably are circumstances where something is available on the web but still unpublished Carl Lindberg talk 15 25 26 March 2015 UTC Papal encyclicals with copyrighted translations edit Many of the papal encyclicals on this site have translations whose translations are almost certainly copyright violation at least from what I can see Here s a breakdown First there are a few copied from papalencyclicals net This website states that Most of the encyclicals on this site were scanned by CRNET from the 5 volume set The Papal Encyclicals 1740 1981 published by Pierian Press but does not give direct attribution to the translator for each document Nobilissima Gallorum Gens Charitas Inscrutabile Second there are many that are copied from vatican va I suppose there could be some argument that these are official documents of a foreign government the Holy See but not to be confused with Vatican City but the website does explicitly state Copyright Libreria Editrice Vaticana Fausto Appetente Die In Praeclara Summorum Sacra Propediem Annus Iam Plenus Principi Apostolorum Petro Spiritus Paraclitus Pacem Dei Munus Pulcherrimum Paterno Iam Diu In Hac Tanta Quod Iam Diu Humani Generis Redemptionem Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum Annum Sacrum Caritatis Studium Augustissimae Virginis Mariae Adiutricem Ad Extremas Rerum Novarum Quod Anniversarius Humanum genus Cum Multa Auspicato Concessum Etsi Nos Grande Munus Finally there are some with no translator attribution at all but based on their formatting I would hazard a guess that these are also from the website of the Holy See Mit Brennender Sorge I suspect that this one is even copyrighted in the original Vehementer Nos E Supremi Affari Vos Sublimis Deus Quam Singulari Pope Pius X Regnans in Excelsis Solet Annuere Beleg Tâl talk 20 35 4 March 2015 UTC The Little Glass Bottle edit H P Lovecraft is always rather hairy copyright wise but S T Joshi s H P Lovecraft and Lovecraft Criticism 1981 ISBN 0 87338 248 X lists this as being first published in The Shuttered Room and Other Pieces which has a renewal RE341797 12Jun87 limited to NM new except six prev pub titles The Commonplace book The Books The Gods Dagon The Strange high house in the mist and The Outsider Now it does say Author H P Lovecraft pseud of August William Derleth and was renewed by April Derleth Jacobs Walden William Derleth C C standing for children of the author so the renewal is technically flawed but I don t know the exact law here and I suspect many judges would let them slide anyway To call it PD is cutting some pretty thin hairs I believe Prosfilaes talk 11 05 8 March 2015 UTC In that case it s probably not just The Little Glass Bottle which is affected There are three other surviving juvenile stories The Secret Cave or John Lees Adventure The Mystery of the Grave Yard and The Mysterious Ship They are all on Wikisource and as far as I can tell they were all first published in The Shuttered Room and Other Pieces Pasicles talk 20 56 18 November 2015 UTC Index The Aryans A Study of Indo European Origins djvu edit Australian author working in Britan died 1957 So despite not being renewed this one might possibly have been revieved by URAA ShakespeareFan00 talk 12 45 8 March 2015 UTC Given the title page I would assume that Alfred A Knopf published it with in 30 days of the UK publication someone could certainly check the original copyright registrations If so it was a work first published in the US for the purposes of US copyright law and therefore wouldn t be revived by the URAA Someone should probably move it from Commons though Prosfilaes talk 13 37 8 March 2015 UTC Based on a quick search of Stanford and the USCO by last name no renewals of this specific work are evident other works by Gordon Childe pop up but not this one Also a quick check of the copies of the 1926 and 1927 registers at the Internet Archive don t show an initial registration Revent talk 03 32 11 March 2015 UTC not to claim this was an authoritative search a manual check of the renewals for the early to mid 1950 s would be in order Revent talk 03 37 11 March 2015 UTC Two questions How would you find the exact date of publication Without an exact date of publication you won t be able to tell whether the first United States publication was within 30 days or not Where does the 30 day rule come from c Template PD URAA Simul says that the answer is given at w WP NUSC but I can t find it there 17 U S C 104 A only talks about countries other than the United States and only about publication in multiple countries on the same day and doesn t mention any 30 day rule The Berne Convention states that in the event that a work was published in more than one country within 30 days the source country is the country with the shortest term and no renewal is not a copyright term according to the French supreme court 3 If a copyright term is defined in the same way in the United States it would seem that you would instead have to determine whether the full US term of 95 years from publication is shorter than the British term of life 70 years and restore the copyright if life 70 years is shorter Stefan2 talk 19 15 17 March 2015 UTC Stefan2 The Berne Convention article 3 subsection 4 A work shall be considered as having been published simultaneously in several countries if it has been published in two or more countries within thirty days of its first publication 17 USC 101 a work is a United States work only if 1 in the case of a published work the work is first published A in the United States B simultaneously in the United States and another treaty party or parties whose law grants a term of copyright protection that is the same as or longer than the term provided in the United States C simultaneously in the United States and a foreign nation that is not a treaty party Also 17 USC 104 b 6 For purposes of paragraph 2 a work that is published in the United States or a treaty party within 30 days after publication in a foreign nation that is not a treaty party shall be considered to be first published in the United States or such treaty party as the case may be Revent talk 21 28 17 March 2015 UTC As an even better explanation after a bit of searching from ESTATE OF Gunter S ELKAN v HASBRO INC and its wholly owned subsidiary Milton Bradley Company 9th Cir Dec 3 2007 In order for a foreign copyright to restore an expired United States copyright a published work must have been published first in the foreign country and not published in the United States during the 30 day period following publication in such eligible country Id 104A h 6 D Revent talk 21 40 17 March 2015 UTC According to 17 USC 101 the source country depends on the length of the copyright term USA is only the source country if USA has the shortest term If the other country has a shorter term then that country is the source country instead This means that U S courts have to find out whether life 70 is shorter than publication 95 years in a lot of situations where less than 25 years have passed since the first publication of the work and the author still is alive Stefan2 talk 23 16 17 March 2015 UTC Indeed but it is a point that would seem to be a bit moot in most cases since the US does not and has never had a rule of the shorter term if the US is not the source country simply because the other country is a treaty partner with a shorter term through bilateral recognition the work is still entitled to the longer term in the United States under 104 b 2 which allows for a foreign work published in a treaty partner to be protected under the US terms If such works then lost US protection because of a failure to renew for example they would normally then be eligible works under the URAA Revent talk 01 09 18 March 2015 UTC Actually no the U S does not use the definitions from the Berne Convention The source country is the country of first publication even if 1 day before another country if even that is a tie then the source country is the one with the greatest contacts to the work more of a common sense definition The URAA source country is analogous to the Berne country of origin but there are some differences particularly in the simultaneous publication case However the URAA does take advantage of the 30 day publication window to claim such works as U S works and those are not subject to URAA restoration since they do not qualify as a restored work in the first place so there is no need to identify a source country This is the definition of restored work in 17 USC 104A h 6 D The source country is defined in 17 USC 104A h 8 but that only comes into play if something is a restored work to start with There is no definition of source country in 17 USC 101 and the length of the copyright term elsewhere is irrelevant for U S status Carl Lindberg talk 09 01 26 March 2015 UTC Clindberg Not certain if you were disagreeing with Stefan or with me I think it was with him as regarding the source country being dependent on the term of copyright my point was that in such a case which country was the source in such a case would be irrelevant even if the US was considered the source in that situation and you are correct that it would not it would not make any effective difference since it would get the US term anyhow through bilateral recognition a work can be treated as a US work even if the US would not be the source country horrible terms tbh I was admittedly a bit vague about the difference between a work that has the US as the source country and a US work above And yes it should be understood that 17 USC 104 c explicitly states that no US copyright is dependent on the terms of the Berne Convention but only on provisions of US law My starting with the Berne Convention 30 day rule was just a starting point there are actually multiple 30 day rules that all come down to simultaneous publication Revent talk 07 16 3 April 2015 UTC Yes I was responding to Stefan sorry His statement looks to be quite wrong which is strange for him Carl Lindberg talk 23 35 24 April 2015 UTC File The Book of the Homeless New York Charles Scribner s Sons 1916 djvu edit The license tag at commons is mistaken It s not PD 70 Page The Book of the Homeless New York Charles Scribner s Sons 1916 djvu 49 Author is Jean Maurice Eugène Clément Cocteau 1889 1963 Also Page The Book of the Homeless New York Charles Scribner s Sons 1916 djvu 107 Margaret Louisa Woods 1856 1945 expires next year in UK Page The Book of the Homeless New York Charles Scribner s Sons 1916 djvu 231 Maurice Polydore Marie Bernard Maeterlinck 1862 6 May 1949 Page Page The Book of the Homeless New York Charles Scribner s Sons 1916 djvu 259 André Suarès born Isaac Félix Suarès 1 1868 1948 It is PD US 1923 which means it could be hosted locally if someone wants to move it from commons with an updated tag ShakespeareFan00 talk 18 53 17 March 2015 UTC The work is PD because it was published in the US in 1916 which is before 1923 It does not need to be moved to local hosting Beeswaxcandle talk 01 19 29 March 2015 UTC It depends on the Commons rules but it looks like the text cited was not first published in the US The standard of ever published in the US before 1923 is not the rule generally used Prosfilaes talk 10 56 29 March 2015 UTC The early pages of the book state that the material is original In reading it sounds like Edith Wharton asked various authors for contributions so it would seem that all the material had not been previously published If so that would make the U S the country of origin regardless of the nationality of the author I do see an edition published in London also in 1916 on Google Books though even there the copyright is claimed by Charles Scribner Sons the U S publisher I think PD US 1923 is the correct license for all of it PD Old 70 would apply to lots of the individual works and the arrangement and translations which sounds like they were done by Wharton thought not all of them Carl Lindberg talk 16 27 29 March 2015 UTC commons Commons Licensing normally requires free licensing in at least the United States and in the source country of the work so in case something is freely licensed in the USA but not the source country just post here as needed then wait for free licensing in the source country to move to Commons Jusjih talk 01 49 5 April 2015 UTC Being first published in the U S makes that the country of origin as well That appears to be the case with all portions of that work Carl Lindberg talk 23 23 24 April 2015 UTC Index The International Code of Marketing of Breast milk Substitutes pdf edit Per Commons notice and note in work C World Health Organization 1981 Publications of the World Health Organization enjoy copyright protection in accordance with the provisions of Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention For rights of reproduction or translation of WHO publications in part or in toto application should be made to the Office of Publications World Health Organization Geneva Switzerland The World Health Organization welcomes such applications Nothing a request for OTRS wouldn t resolve though ShakespeareFan00 talk 12 26 18 March 2015 UTC Science 1st year Secondary School 1st Term edit I brought this here as a courtesy but the discussion might better be held on Commons File Science Tr1 pdf has a license saying This work is not an object of copyright in Egypt because it is an official document Regardless of their source or target language all official documents are ineligible for protection in Egypt including laws regulations resolutions and decisions international conventions court decisions award of arbitrators and decisions of administrative committees having judicial competence Article 141 of Intellectual Property Law 82 of 2002 All of those examples are akin to PD EdictGov I note particularly it s not just decisions of administrative committees but instead those having judicial competence Nothing in that list of examples is remotely akin to a textbook Prosfilaes talk 18 16 24 March 2015 UTC Pellucidar edit closed Exported to Canadian Wikilivres Pellucidar Jusjih talk 23 09 2 June 2015 UTC text Added today Pellucidar is an Edgar Rice Burroughs novel that was published in 1923 Burroughs died in 1950 only 65 years ago EncycloPetey talk 02 40 2 April 2015 UTC What relevance has his death date here He s an American about the only thing his death date matters is that anything by him first published after 2002 won t be PD for another 6 years Pellucidar doesn t seem to have had its copyright renewed if there was anything copyrightable about the 1923 publication it was first serialized in 1915 Prosfilaes talk 13 15 2 April 2015 UTC Yaaayyy We need more works by this amazing author I am of course clearly and completely unbiased about this matter John Carter talk 20 18 3 April 2015 UTC Adding his works are physically not a problem these are readily available I also have many But most are copyright renewed as per Stanford search Hrishikes talk 02 44 5 April 2015 UTC I am reopening the case and leaving it to uninvolved administrator Jusjih talk 01 06 5 June 2015 UTC Resignation letter of Jogendra Nath Mandal edit This work is neither PD US nor PD Pakistan as claimed in the license Author died in 1968 as per Wikipedia article on him 50 years not yet over The work is of 1950 Hrishikes talk 11 43 4 June 2015 UTC It would seem to be PD Pakistan as a governmental work more than 50 years from publication That would probably mean it technically qualified for the URAA and thus was restored in the US I m not sure what the attitude is on wikisource towards governmental works which have a special term in their own country which has expired in a way that is basically PD author the author placing their works in the public domain We have gotten confirmation from the UK and Canada I think that they consider Crown Copyright expiration to apply worldwide but I don t think we have gotten any explicit confirmation from Pakistan Carl Lindberg talk 22 55 4 June 2015 UTC Clindberg The author was a government minister no doubt but does a resignation qualify as government work or is it purely personal After all people resign from the government not on behalf of it Hrishikes talk 00 26 5 June 2015 UTC It was written in his capacity as an employee not personal to me He would still be an employee until the resignation was accepted Carl Lindberg talk 02 33 15 June 2015 UTC Deletion nominations at Commons for PD UN work post 1984 edit The following file are at Commons and have been nominated for deletion They had been labelled PD UN here though it seems that Commons is of the opinion that PD UN is not an acceptable licence for works published after 1984 We can let the deletions progress and this will affect the transcluded works which we would need to either recover the underlying works back here or we can delete these works too Works effected are File Kosovo KOSOVO KOSOVA As Seen As Told Osce 1999 pdf File Kosovo Ombudsperson of Kosovo Fifth Annual report 2004 2005 pdf File Kosovo Ombudsperson of Kosovo Fourth Annual report 2003 2004 pdf File Kosovo Ombudsperson of Kosovo Ninth Annual Report 2008 2009 pdf File Kosovo Ombudsperson of Kosovo Seventh Annual Report 2006 2007 pdf File Kosovo Ombudsperson of Kosovo Sixth Annual report 2005 2006 pdf File Kosovo Ombudsperson of Kosovo Third Annual report 2002 2003 pdf File SECOND ANNUAL REPORT 2001 2002 pdf File Kosovo OSCE Legal System Monitoring Section Monthly Report December 2008 pdf Please make any comment about the files deletion nomination at c Commons Deletion requests 2015 06 04 no 215 and 216 please make any recommendation about our handling of transcluded works here Access to the files an be via Portal Kosovo billinghurst sDrewth 07 53 6 June 2015 UTC The entire premise for deprecating the UN tag is based on the old annex issuance which was superseded and then modified twice more You can t argue with the Commons know it alls unless its not a picture of a cute kitty it seems fwiw Here s the history as of 2015 Part V p 34 in short http undocs org ST AI 189 Add 9 Rev 1 March 26 1985 obsolete had an annex at end listing certain types of docs that did not would not be registered http undocs org ST AI 189 Add 9 Rev 2 Sept 17 1987 above annex replaced by 3 bullet list of the types of docs excluded from copyright http undocs org ST AI 189 Add 9 Rev 2 Add 1 April 5 1990 extended in effect period of above 3 bullet list from Dec 1989 to Dec 1991 http undocs org ST AI 189 Add 9 Rev 2 Add 2 Feb 25 1992 superseded 1991 extension currently still in effect http undocs org ST AI 189 Add 27 Nov 8 1990 modifies instructions for use of copyrighted materials within UN publications not relevant to discussion As for the docs listed above all except the last OSCE one seem to qualify as in the public domain per ST AI 189 Add 9 Rev 2 I 2 a to me George Orwell III talk 22 54 6 June 2015 UTC I will move them back to enWS billinghurst sDrewth 05 52 7 June 2015 UTC That will work fine for this list of false positives this week but unless the PD UN template is restored to a legit status I m afraid this will be an ongoing circle jerk with Commons George Orwell III talk 10 24 7 June 2015 UTC Yeah I m of the opinion that ST AI 189

    Original URL path: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Editing Wikisource:What is Wikisource? (section) - Wikisource, the free online library
    Category Wikisource Summary By clicking the Save page button you are agreeing to the Terms of Use the Privacy Policy and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY SA 3 0 License and the GFDL You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license Cancel Editing help opens in new window Retrieved from https en wikisource org wiki Wikisource What

    Original URL path: https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:What_is_Wikisource%3F&action=edit§ion=10 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Wikisource:What is Wikisource? - Wikisource, the free online library
    include and exclude at Wikisource edit Shortcut WS IO Some things we include are Source texts previously published by any author Translations of original texts Historical documents of national or international interest Bibliographies of authors whose works are in Wikisource Contributions are not limited to this list of course Some basic criteria for texts excluded from Wikisource are Copyright infringements Original writings by a contributor to the project Mathematical data formulae and tables Source code for computers Statistical source data such as election results These are just the most basic obvious things that are excluded from Wikisource There may of course be other things excluded by policy or convention For more information please see What Wikisource includes Languages and translations edit Wikisource is a multilingual project Texts and translations of texts are welcome in all languages at the appropriate subdomains and at the general wikisource org wiki This English wiki is for Source texts originally in English English translations of source texts in other languages Parallel source with translations into English It is important to link and classify texts and translations so that they will be as accessible as possible to everybody For information on languages and translations please see Wikisource Translations and return Wikisource and other Wikimedia projects edit Wikisource or Wikibooks edit The distinction between these two projects is relatively easy Wiki source focuses on material published elsewhere Wikisource can be viewed as a library of public domain works Wiki books are instructional materials written by the contributors themselves e g study guides classroom textbooks and annotated texts for classroom use The area of annotations to source texts is a gray area with some legitimate overlap between Wikisource and Wikibooks For guidelines on this see the information pages on the topic at both projects Wikisource Annotations Wikibooks Annotated texts Wikisource or Wikipedia edit While Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Wikisource is a library Wikipedia contains articles about books while Wikisource includes the book itself To some extent both may include bibliographical material about the author Protecting pages edit The wiki pages on most Wikimedia projects are designed to evolve forever Typical examples are Wikipedia articles or Wikibooks study guides By contrast Wikisource is a library of static texts that have already been published elsewhere In many or most cases these texts are not meant to change and evolve and it would deeply hurt their integrity if they did Therefore Wikisource has adopted a policy of noting text quality and protecting pages from editing once they are thought to be correctly formatted and error free Comments about needed changes or corrections can always be made on the talk page and if necessary the page can be unprotected In this way Wikisource is more similar to Wikinews which protects the pages in its news archives for historical integrity For more information please see Wikisource Protection policy NPOV edit Shortcut WS NPOV WS POV WS Neutral WS Neutrality See also meta Neutral point of view N eutral P oint o f V

    Original URL path: https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:What_is_Wikisource%3F&oldid=6034977 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Categories - Wikisource, the free online library
    05 1 member 0s BCE births 10 members 0s BCE deaths 9 members 0s births 10 members 0s deaths 9 members 100 1 024 members 1000s BCE deaths 1 member 1000s births 11 members 1000s deaths 10 members 1001 2 members 1001 link2 1 member 1001 link3 1 member 1002 births 1 member 1002 deaths 1 member 1003 deaths 3 members 1004 1 member 1007 births 1 member 1008 births 1 member 1009 deaths 1 member 100 BCE births 1 member 100 births 1 member 100 deaths 3 members 100s BCE births 10 members 100s BCE deaths 11 members 100s births 10 members 100s deaths 11 members 1010 works 1 member 1010s births 11 members 1010s deaths 10 members 1010s works 1 member 1012 deaths 1 member 1013 births 1 member 1013 deaths 1 member 1014 deaths 1 member 1015 births 1 member 1016 births 1 member 1016 deaths 1 member 1017 births 1 member 1018 births 1 member 1018 deaths 1 member 1020 deaths 2 members 1020s births 11 members 1020s deaths 11 members 1021 births 1 member 1021 deaths 1 member first last View previous 50 next 50 20 50 100 250 500 Retrieved from https en wikisource

    Original URL path: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Categories (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Category:Wikisource - Wikisource, the free online library
    Tenth Anniversary Contest 11 P U User essays 2 P W Wikisource screenshots 3 F Pages in category Wikisource The following 29 pages are in this category out of 29 total A Wikisource Administrators Wikisource Anniversaries Wikisource Authority control Wikisource Autopatrolled B Wikisource Babel Wikisource Bot users C Wikisource Community portal Wikisource Confirmed users E User talk Eco impact F User Sir48 Sandbox1 G Wikisource General disclaimer I Wikisource Interlanguage links L Help Licensing compatibility P Wikisource Purchases R Wikisource Reform month 2007 Wikisource Requested texts Archives 2007 Wikisource Requests for comment S Wikisource Scan parties User Sanbeg Wikisource Scriptorium Wikisource Scriptorium Wikisource Scriptorium Help Wikisource Scriptorium Rebinding Wikisource Search Wikisource Sources Wikisource Sources Ebook lib hku hk notes T Wikisource TemplateScript W Wikisource What is Wikisource Wikimedia and the new collaborative digital archives Wikisource Wikisourcers Retrieved from https en wikisource org w index php title Category Wikisource oldid 4754410 Category Categories Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in Namespaces Category Discussion Variants Views Read Edit View history More Search Navigation Main Page Community portal Central discussion Recent changes Subject index Authors Random work Random author Random transcription Help Donate Tools What links here

    Original URL path: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Wikisource (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •