Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 July 31

31 July 2018

The article Borehole_image_logs uses images that are lifted directly from an Oilfield Review article. I find the "Own Work" copyright tag on the images to be improbable. Closetsingle (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issue resolved. The images have been deleted on Commons. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Meetoo (history · last edit · rewrite) from https://www.meetoo.com/blog/2017/meetoo-a-brief-history. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic (history · last edit · rewrite) Listing this here in the hope of resolving the question for good: it has not been demonstrated that the music, the lyrics or the translations of the lyrics are out of copyright; the composer, Yudakov, died in 1990, for example. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The copyright status of this national anthem has already been assessed and found to be public domain due to Tajik and Russian laws (as the legal successors to Soviet Tajikistan and the Soviet Union) regarding state/national symbols and the sources cited in the article, which were purged by the copyright tag, stated in them that this anthem is in the public domain. This listing should be speedily closed or withdrawn. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can't host the translations unless they can be shown to be in the public domain. Translating a work generates a new copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa:, the sources on the English translation which were removed by this copyright template state "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License." I respectfully ask that this nomination is withdrawn. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes, BrendonTheWizard, the page does indeed carry that licence. Do you think that it means that the website is also the copyright owner of the original words and music of the anthem, which are on the same page, and so apparently claimed to be released under the same licence? Or is that claim completely spurious? My money is on the latter. Until and unless we know who wrote that awful translation, and when and how they released copyright in it, we can't host it in Wikipedia. We don't need to find proof that it is in copyright, we assume that in the absence of clear and convincing proof to the contrary (and an audio file uploaded to Commons does not begin to provide such proof). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]