David Newton wrote: That's not what he's saying at all. The simple point is that being in the public domain overrides GFDL or any other licence. In his reply to this Soufron made particular reference to section 104{b)(5) of the United States copyright law. This has the effect of extending copyright protection under United States law to publications of the United Nations. It derives from the adherence of the United States to the Second Protocol of the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC). That protocol has the effect of extending the applicability of Article II(1) of the UCC to the certain international organizations including the United Nations. In turn that article says: So United Nations works are protected in the United States to the same extent that works of United States citizens are protected in the United Nations. Unless there is such a thing as a copyright act of the United Nations, that protection is nothing at all. If these works are copyright then from when? From 1955 based on the 50 year Berne Convention Rule? From 1964 based on the presumed failure of the United Nations to renew copyrights on these resolutions? From 1971 based on the year when the United States adopted the Second Protocol? This still does not address the United States position that laws cannot be copyrighted as a matter of public policy. That is especially clear in relation to the federal law of the United States, but less so in relation to the laws of the several united states and foreign laws. That begs the question, "What is the legal status of international laws and resolutions in the United States?" It could easily be argued that as long as the United States is a member of the legislating organization those laws have the status of laws of the United States, and are therefore uncopyrightable. The applicability of UN copyrights in other countries is still not solved by this, and may very well depend on their separate national laws. I don't see fair use as being relevant to our publication of the UN resolutions. I will be the first to agree that fair use is often misunderstood, and applied to excuse actions that would not otherwise be acceptable. Some misuse it because they feel it is an easier argument than going through the work of establishing public domain status; for others it is an act of desparation when they can find no other basis for including a desired work. There is nothing in fair use doctrine that would disallow its applicability to whole works, but such cases would be uncommon and need to be argued separately. Copyright does not arise from the notice alone. There must be authority for an editor to attach these notices. Modifying these texts, or any other, would be contrary to the purpose of Wikisource. I would not consider wikifying a link to an earlier resolution to be a modification. In any event to the extent that GFDL is applicable it does allow for sections to be declared invariant. The usefulness is an issue that is quite different from copyrights. The UN web site is indeed available, but it does not provide immediate cross-links between related resolutions. It does not provide opportunities for other references or commentary. Wikisource has the potential ability to make them far more useful than they are on the UN site. And what is their basis for making those statements. Terms of Use of this sort are paper tigers. It is interesting to read the Specht v. Netscape case at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/stjohns/Specht_v_Netscape.pdf "We conclude that in circumstances such as these, where consumers are urged to download free software at the immediate click of a button, a reference to the existence of license terms on a submerged screen is not sufficient to place consumers on inquiry or constructive notice of those terms.... When products are “free” and users are invited to download them in the absence of reasonably conspicuous notice that they are about to bind themselves to contract terms, the transactional circumstances cannot be fully analogized to those in the paper world of arm’s-length bargaining." It would seem that these "Terms of Use" on the UN website do not require a clear assent on the part of the user. The website will work whether or not the user views the page of terms, or even knows about it. Nor is there any specification of legal jurisdiction where a dispute arising from those terms could be settled. In the absence of a clear contract, one must conclude that statutory provisions. In the absence of an actual claim of fair use I don't see that your argument purportedly negating its application can have any relevance. Your paragraph is a series of non-sequiturs. Absolutely not. That would carry the implication that all quotations of any kind from copyright material would not be allowed. Public domain material which happened to quote copyright material would not be allowed under those terms. As an obvious example, a work of literary criticism from the United States whose copyright was not renewed could not be included if it happened to include passages from literature that did have its copyrights properly renewed. Your extremist position leads to an open range of absurd possibilities. Please do not confuse ignorance with willfulness. Assume good faith. I am well aware of wishful claims of fair use, but I repeat that they are not relevant to this discussion. Some of the UN resolutions have already been on the Wikisource site since its earliest days, but there has not been a peep from the United Nations itself about this. As long as a reasonable copyright argument for keeping these resolutions exists we should keep them. I would take a direct complaint from the United Nations far more seriously than that from one individual who is suddenly infected with a bout of copyright paranoia. Given my comments above regarding usefulness, they could even become convinced that we are doing them a service that is better than what could develop in their own diplomatic/bureaucratic system. Ec

Actually they allow to "download and copy". I interpret this as an authorization to get and copy them. It is true that they also forbid to "resell or redistribute" them, but I understand it as the interdiction to commercially use them. Not the interdiction to copy them for third parties because it would be otherwise contradictory with authorizing people to copy them. This seems to make sense given the current applications of these terms of use by people on Internet.