Template talk:PD-Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Canada, copyright protection normally lasts until 50 years after the author's death (50 years p.m.a.) since 1999. However, under the old Copyright Act, photographs were protected only for 50 years after their creation. When Bill C-32: An Act to Amend the Copyright Act came into effect on January 1, 1999, photographs whose copyright already had expired remained in the public domain. As a result, Canadian photographs taken before January 1, 1949 and not under Crown copyright are in the public domain in Canada. See also [1] at the bottom.

Crown copyright? Would that include the BC Archives photo collection materials (http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca); I already heard back from BC Basemap (maps.gov.bc.ca) but of course that's not over 50 years old; but I'm interested in the status of photos in the Archives collection, where they assert copyright but, in some cases I know of, actually have no right to do so (the Phair collection, small-c here as they never set aside Artie Phair materials as a formal collection as with Maynard, Swannell etc; the Phair family maintains they have the copyright, y'see, even over stuff the archives say they do. But as a general situation, I'm wondering about 19th Century photos, where some are circulated as postcards even today but an early print, or sometimes the negative, is in the archives. Anyway, would a government agency of any kind constitute "crown copyright"?Skookum1 18:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)PS See the external links section of New Westminster, British Columbia for samples of pics I think would be great if they could be included as illustrations for the main article.Skookum1 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Note however that such images are not automatically also in the public domain in other countries. If the image had been first published in Canada and was not copyrighted there by January 1, 1996, it is also in the public domain in the United States. (If the image was first published elsewhere, use that country's copyright laws to determine whether the image was copyrighted there on January 1, 1996 to determine its copyright status in the U.S.) See Peter Hirtle's chart on help figuring out whether a certain image is in the public domain in the U.S.

Lupo 08:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Should this template mention the few (but presumably growing) number of photographs that were published after Jan 1, 1949, but are still in the public domain because the photographer died more than 50 yeares ago (i.e. before November 16, 1955, as of today)? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it should. Side note: it's created before January 1, 1949, so an image is even in the public domain in Canada if it has been created before that date, but published only after! (Unless it was covered by Crown copyright. I don't know what the rules for Canadian Crown copyright are.) Also note that "50 years p.m.a" usually extends to the end of the year, i.e., in Canada, photographs created and published after January 1, 1949 are in the public domain only if the author died before January 1, 1955 as of this writing. If the photographer died November 16, 1955, his works would still be copyrighted until the end of this year. See also this table and this explanation. Lupo 15:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
On Crown copyright: for things still covered by Crown copyright, we have {{CanadaCopyright}}, which is a "non-commercial only" license, but used nevertheless... Lupo 16:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite proposal to cover Crown copyright

I propose the following rewrite of this template to cover also Canadian works where the crown copyright has expired:

Public domain
Maple leaf
This Canadian work is in the public domain in Canada because its copyright has expired due to one of the following:
1. it was subject to Crown copyright and was first published more than 50 years ago, or

it was not subject to Crown copyright, and

2. it is a photograph that was created prior to January 1, 1949, or
3. the creator died more than 50 years ago.
The media description page should identify which reason applies, and should also have a rationale explaining the copyright status of the work in the U.S.

Thoughts? Lupo 14:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I think that's a good idea. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • What about the phrasing? It just occurred to me that (3) might be problematic. Maybe we should replace "photographer" by "author"? (I'm thinking of reproductive photos of PD artwork, which, AFAIK, are treated in Canada the same way as in the U.S., i.e. no new copyright.) Lupo 13:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Creator? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Would work, too. I'll patch it in and leave it for another short while to see whether someone else pipes up :-) Lupo 14:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Updated. Lupo 11:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright claims of museums or archives

I'm still trying to figure this out. BC Archives has many old photos relating to riverboats and the Skeena river. They have 640x480 photos you can view with the browser. 96 year-old example. When you click on the image on that link, you see a message "(C) Provided for research purposes only. Other uses require permission." So under Canadian copyright law, are they wrong in saying it requires permission, or do I require permission to use the image in Wikipedia? Someone please comment. Deet 04:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Photographs created before 1949 are in the public domain in Canada. Period. Museums and archives claim copyright on their holdings all the time, but in most cases, that's either plain copyfraud or done to discourage use of items that actually are copyrighted, though not necessarily by the museum or archive. If you think an item on the web site of a museum or archive actually was in the public domain, carefully evaluate the item in question. If you then arrive at the conclusion that indeed the item is (very probably) out of copyright, you may use it. Include on the image description page your reasoning, and give the source. I usually use a phrase like "Immediate image source: <URL here>, who claim copyright." and then go on to explain why I think that copyright claim is bogus.
Now for the particular image you mentioned: it was created in 1910 by "McRae Brothers". Its copyright in Canada thus expired at the very last in 1960. The only copyright relations between Canada and the U.S. at that time was a bilateral treaty effective January 1, 1924, of which we don't know the contents. (The U.S. had joined the UCC in 1955, but Canada did do so only in 1962.) In all likelihood the image is even in the public domain in the U.S., too. To be sure, we'd need to know what that 1924 treaty laid down, and whether the image was published and if so, when and if it had a copyright notice. If published before 1923 (very likely), the image is in the public domain in the U.S. If unpublished or published 1923 or later, it depends on what that treaty of 1924 said and when these McRae Brothers died. In any case, the image is in the public domain in Canada. I think you could use the image here (but crop away all those ugly "BC Museum" stuff at the borders) with that reasoning, but if you could show that these McRae Brothers died before 1936, that would be even better (because then, we'd have assurance that the image is in the public domain in the U.S. even if unpublished—unpublished works of a known author are copyrighted until 70 years after the author's death in the U.S.). IANAL, HTH. Lupo 08:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Deet 17:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Hm. This might explain why the British Columbia Archives has never come after me for the hundreds of archival pictures I used to illustrate my local-history website (http://www.cayoosh.net); I did speak to them and more or less have verbal permission but never went through with the paperwork on usage-permission ("OK for non-profit use") as it was a lot of work, listing all the images etc. I'll have to read the explanation above carefully; some of the photographers involved died less than 100 years ago, and in one case I'm thinking of his estate is thinking of re-asserting copyright to the collection as held by BC Archives, which the archives already claims (apparently illegitimately, if what you're saying holds, at least within Canada anyway); but now I'm wondering...there's a lot of really useful images for Wiki articles that the claimed copyrights may have no relevance to (see Hotel Vancouver, Lacrosse and New Westminster, British Columbia, among others, and note the External Links/Archival Photos sections, which I compiled. What the BC Archives had told me was that as long as there was a link-through to their site's information page on the image, and a tag "BC Archives Photo # xxxxxx, they'd be fine with it; but Wiki rules involve permission; but it sounds that no permission is required in many/most cases despite it being demanded.....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......Skookum1 18:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC) PS Copyright is, after all, only the right to sue; this doesn't mean someone is ready to launch the legal case required to assert copyright; I've had this happen with my own photographic work, where it's appeared in ads without my knowledge, but the cost of the case wasn't commensurate with the value of the ad the image appeared in.Skookum1 18:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The 1924 "treaty" was almost certainly a presidential declaration under section 9 of the Copyright Act of 1909, which would have allowed Canadian authors to register copyright in the US in the same manner as US authors: henec, any Canadian works created after 1924-01-01 are potentially under US copyright, regardless of copyright restoration by the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act of 1993 and regardless of their Canadian copyright status. Physchim62 (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/d/-/Template_talk%7EPD-Canada_543d.html"