Template talk:PD-Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 WP:AWNB discussion about Public Domain images from NLA
2 expanded {PD-Australia}
3 Location or Person
4 Crown Copyright
5 Restored US copyrights
6 Wikipedia:Non-US_copyrights#Subsisting_copyrights
7 maps?

[edit] WP:AWNB discussion about Public Domain images from NLA

With all photos taken in Australia or by an Australian before the 1st of Jan 1955 free of copyright (see Template:PD-Australia) a great source of images for historical purposes on Wikipedia is from the National Library's Pictures Catalogue. It gives you the date the image was taken and all the other relavent info. For example I have added a pic from the 40's to the Hyde Park, Sydney page. Nomadtales 01:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that while this is true, the NLA says that you "must" first ask permission [1] .. whether or not this is a legal requirement, it doesn't hurt to ask first I guess. --Russell E 02:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Once something is in the public domain, the copyright belongs to everyone. We all have both the legal and moral rights to copy such material. Their demands are a paper tiger, and in my view an offensive one. By demanding we ask permission to use public domain material; by demanding attribution for public demand material; by routinely placing copyright notices on public domain material; these institutions are trying to bluff us out of our legal and moral rights. It's a form of fraud, and it makes me mad. </rant> Snottygobble | Talk 02:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree, SnottyG. The British Library online also has a wealth of PD material on show, including historical imgs of AU, yet their copyright warning is put in most aggressive terms. In their FAQ, the answer given to the perfectly reasonable question "Why do I need permission to use materials held in the Library which are in the public domain and out of copyright?" is:

The original work(s) are in the public domain, the copies the Library supplies are in copyright as they are new copies of the original materials which are what copyright is held. This is why you will need to clear permission.

This seems highly-questionable to me - how can a copy of a PD-work (to which nothing creative has been added, indeed they strive for a faithful reproduction) suddenly acquire a copyright? I wish I knew more securely one's rights in these instances; I think it has more to do with protecting their reproductions-selling business (starting from 20 quid a pop!) than anything else..--cjllw | TALK 04:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad this issue has come up, I recently struck the same forking paths at the State Library of Victoria website [2] - "Images of collection items are owned by the State Library of Victoria... They cannot be reproduced without prior permission from the Library" and yet further on... "It must be stressed that obtaining permission to reproduce an item is not the same as copyright. The State Library of Victoria often does not hold the copyright for items in its collections". Cnwb 01:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Does this also apply to images from the National Portrait Gallery, London? Or is it dependant on how old the original image is? Adam 05:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I have sent an enquiry to the Australian Copyright Council to see what they say. We will see if they get back to me. --Martyman-(talk) 06:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

A friend just put me on to PicturesAustralia [3], who index a large number of image collections, including that of the NLA. --Russell E 08:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That site is fantastic - this could well solve many of our problems with images for articles on topics before 1955. Ambi 08:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I dont think its true that all photos before 55 are free of copyright. I think I read somewhere that its photos taken by a person who died before 55 are free of copyright - ie if they take a photo in 1912 but they pass away in 1960 than the photo still has copyright on it. Cfitzart 11:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No other works are based on when the creator dies, photographs are public domain if taken before 1955 and once we get to 2025 they will start expiring again under the new 70 year rule. --Martyman-(talk) 11:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I assume you meant "No, other work are based..." rather than "No other works..."? JPD (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the significance of 1955? Is this date in a statute somewhere? Can we get a reference for this? Adam 13:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

i am assuming because copyright lasts for 50 years. 2005 - 1955 = 50 Xtra 14:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC) The relevant section may be difficult to find as the time was changed from 50 to 70 under the FTA. Xtra 14:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Under the old pre-FTA system, all Australian photos taken before 1 January 1969 were out of copyright 50 years from when taken. After 1 January 1969, it was 50 years from the end of the year it was first published. Thus, when the FTA came into effect on 1 January 2005, only photos taken before 1 January 1955 were out of copyright under the old system. Now, for a photo taken on or after 1 January 1955, copyright for non-Crown Copyright photos is "life of creator plus 70". So all photos taken in ~~1956~~ 1955 are not going to become public domain at the end of this year. You've gotta love the FTA. Geoff/Gsl 01:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks. Adam 14:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Could I please put in a plea that images are uploaded to Commons rather than here at the English Wikipedia? That way the images can be easily used on any wikiproject including Wikinews, Wiktionary and of course other language wikipedias. When uploading could you please put in a citation of as much info about the photo as you can including the website where the image came from?

On the issue of pre 1955, the information sheet numbered G011 is quite specific and unambiguous:

"If photographs were taken prior to 1 January 1955, copyright has now expired."

"The duration of copyright in photographs has changed significantly as a result of Australia implementing its obligations under the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA). New rules have been introduced to determine the duration of photographs that were still protected by copyright on 1 January 2005 or that were taken after that date. These rules came into effect on 1 January 2005:

• "For photographs which were still in copyright on 1 January 2005, or which were created on or after that date, copyright now lasts until 70 years from the end of the year the photographer died.

• "If the photographer is unknown or used a pseudonym, duration continues indefinitely until the photograph is published. Once it is published, duration will then last until 70 years from the end of the year in which it was published.

All photographs taken before 1 January 1955 are now out of copyright and do not benefit from the new rules."

Scanning or digitising the photograph reproduces the photograph and does not alter the photograph (whole section devoted to this) - we are of course not talking about altering the image through the reproduction process, in which case a new work is produced ... --User:AYArktos | Talk 19:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What about a photograph that was taken before 1955 but in a book which was published afterwards, would there still be copyright because of the book's copyright? Cfitzart 00:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Any Australian photo, published or unpublished, anonymous or attributed, taken before 1 January 1955 is out of copyright and in the public domain. Geoff/Gsl 00:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Then I am going to give a big serve to whoever has been deleting my uploads of politicians, governors-general etc. Adam 00:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Before you do, you should be aware that your action in uploading images to Wikipedia is subject to Australian copyright law, but Wikipedia's storage of them on their servers is subject to U.S. copyright law. Therefore you should not upload images unless they are in the public domain in both countries. See Image:George_leake.jpg for an example of how you might tag an image to ensure that it isn't deleted. Snottygobble | Talk 01:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Under international copyright treaties a country will only recognise foreign material as copyright if the country it is from recognises the copyright. Therefore if it was made in Australia and Australia does not recognise copyright in it, then no other country will. Xtra 03:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

What does the panel think of this? William Haines (Australian politician). Adam 10:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur with the tagging of the image--User:AYArktos | Talk 11:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. And what is the status of old artwork such as this (from 1904) Graham Berry? Adam 11:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

And while we're at it, what would be the status of images of pre-1955 newspaper cuttings? Not really a photograph, or are they? -- Ian ≡ talk 13:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The copyright in the words (or in the drawing, or whatever) is owned by the writer (or illustrator, etc). If the writer died before 1 Jan 1955, then the work is out of copyright; alternatively if the author is unknown (and cannot be discovered by reasonable enquiry), and if it was first published before 1 Jan 1955, then the work is out of copyright. The copyright in the layout expires 25 years after the end of the year in which it was first published, but that's not so much of a problem. --bainer (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

And artwork such as this (from 1904) Graham Berry? Adam 13:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

that is 50 years out of copyright Xtra 14:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Please clarify - what is the rule for newspaper artwork such as cartoons and illustrations? Adam 14:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

For artistic works other than photographs and engravings (so including drawings, paintings, sculpture) it was "life plus 50" and is now "life plus 70". If the creator is unknown, it was "first published plus 50" and is now "first published plus 70". So if the creator died before 1 January 1955 or is unknown and the work was first published before 1 January 1955, then the work is out of copyright. This "in general" applies even if the creator was an employee of the newspaper which holds the actual copyright. See the tables of the duration of copyright datasheet for more info. Geoff/Gsl 22:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Adam, in answer to your earlier question above re imgs from the National Portrait Gallery in London- although they do not come under the fierce "copyright" terms the British Library board would like to claim exists, according to their own website the NPG seek to impose a similar policy. These (public!) institutions would like to maintain that it is their reproduction of a Public Domain work which has a copyright attached, since they cannot claim that the author/artist's copyright exists (according to the UK Govt Intellectual property site, after recent EU standardisations it expires in most instances 70 years after their death). The UK govt site is none too clear about the status of faithful reproductions, mentioning that it may be possible to re-use a reproduction without permission, but also that the institution/photographer may claim copyright by virtue of the "skill and labour" which has gone into making the reproduction. However, the 1999 Bridgeman v Corel ruling (in US jurisdiction) runs counter to this view, and I'm not sure whether the institutions' stance has been tested in higher European or AU courts. I doubt whether these institutions would be able to demonstrate economic loss resulting from the republishing of one of their (low-res) reproductions in a non-profit/educational context on the web (ie WP), since they themselves have freely published these same images. But really, who knows- it's probably safe enough (without republishing their entire catalogue) to use a few imgs, but even better to find some alternate sources such as a few given above which do not carry such a disclaimer, or alternatively to ask for permission when in doubt.

For those interested, a most enlightening and cogent argument against the practices of these institutions can be read here.--cjllw | TALK 01:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I heard back from a senior legal officer at Copyright Australia and they said that the National Library has probably not created a new work through the process of scanning the images and placing them online. So the images are still under public domain. If you where to approach the library for a high quality reproducation they may place you under contractual restrictions as to its use. --Martyman-(talk) 01:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] expanded {PD-Australia}

It seems to me that there is a need to expand the {{PD-Australia}} template to cater for non-photographic works, such as drawings, cartoons, newsprint etc. I suppose we could have several templates but that may be more confusing to users and end up being less likely to be placed accurately. I had a good read of the primary reference [4], and am putting forward the expanded one below as a replacement.

A couple of caveats: Firstly IANAL, but if you take the time to read the document it's not that bad. Secondly there are some cases catered for there which I can't see arising here (eg. films, broadcasts, sound recordings etc.) and therefore haven't allowed for them. If the table becomes too big and too specific people won't read it and we may as well just refer them to the pdf.

I also updated the information sheet reference which has been updated slightly (was Feb 2005, now Sep 2005).

This image was created in Australia and is now in the public domain because its term of copyright has expired. According to the Australian Copyright Council (ACC), ACC Information Sheet G23 (Duration of copyright) (Sep 2005), generally copyright has expired as follows:

Type of material		Copyright has expired if ...
A	Photographs or other works published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown:	taken or published prior to 1955-01-01
B	Photographs (except A}:	taken prior to 1955-01-01
C	Artistic works (except A & B):	the creator died before 1955-01-01
D	Published editions¹ (except A & B):	first published more than 25 years ago
E	Commonwealth or State government owned² photographs:	first published more than 50 years ago

¹ means the typographical arrangement and layout of a published work. eg. newsprint.

²owned means where a government is the copyright owner as well as would have owned copyright but reached some other agreement with the creator.

Feedback welcome! -- Ian ≡ talk 10:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

While it is bulky it does look comprehensive. I also am not a lawyer but have read the material available and, while not on the Clapham omnibus right now, feel that a layperson's opinion on this material should be OK to go forward with.

You will update the tempate at Commons too?

Perhaps we can have subtemplates available - ie PD-Australia-photo so that there is some choice to use a less bulky template, keeping this template as the basic template available. Or we could have parameter choices, but if we are trying to keep simple for all users parameter choice might be a bit sophisticated.--A Y Arktos (Talk) 19:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I was deliberately trying to keep it simple and as near as possible to be a catch-all. It is bulky but I'm not sure what you can do about that. I'm also not sure it matters all that much. -- Ian ≡ talk 00:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason why we couldn't have subtemplates as well (or instead of), but you'd need: {PD-Australia-photo}, {PD-Australia-photo-anon}, {PD-Australia-engraving}, {PD-Australia-engraving-anon}, {PD-Australia-art}, {PD-Australia-art-anon}, {PD-Australia-published}, {PD-Australia-published-anon} and {PD-Australia-govt} -- Ian ≡ talk 01:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for parameters or subtemplates, this is much clearer. I think it's an advantage to have all the rules in the one template anyway. And only people who are viewing the Image: page will be seeing this anyway. Good job. --bainer (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps A & B can be merged and the "life plus 70" qualification can be left out seeing as no photos will become public domain under that rule until 2025 or after. All that needs to be said for non-Crown photos is if it was created before 1/1/1955, it is public domain. There may be some confusion with government photos seeing as they remain under the "plus 50" rule and so the 1/1/1955 date is going to be incremented each year. For that reason, it might be safer to have a separate template for government photos. Geoff/Gsl 02:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I take your point about the "life plus 70" on photos and the govt clause. Amended accordingly. I'm not sure about combining A&B as A refers not just to photos, but also art, engravings and published works. -- Ian ≡ talk 03:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

For government photos it is still "made/taken", not "published", and will remain so until 2019 or thereabouts when photos taken 1969 or later reach their 50th birthday. I see your point re: A & B. Personally I think it would be clearer if there was one clause covering all non-Crown photos, which I expect will be the bulk of the uploads, and another clause for "anonymous works other than photographs" or something. However, doing that will probably require all the exceptions to be changed, and I see the value of keeping this table in line with the ACC infosheet. Also, how likely is someone to upload an image of an engraving, whatever that is. Geoff/Gsl 04:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree comment on engravings - removed. In the unlikely event that someone did upload an image of one, and if it was tagged as art, the rules are less restrictive with engravings: (...first published ... or the creator died ...), and so would not be broken. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that as Crown Copyright material works on a different rule and duration, that should be dealt with in its own tag as it is presently. Xtra 04:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

But that's the whole point of having them all together. All of the types have slightly differing rules. Govt photos are different from other photos just as art is different from published works. By having a single template, the user doesn't have to be specific as to which type the image is. In some instances (from personal experience on a number of accasions) it can be unclear whether an image is govt or not. The other reason is he can see at a glance what the rules are for all types, rather than having to read the source or (as someone else suggested) having to read a separate article that explains the rules. -- Ian ≡ talk 03:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Location or Person

In the Template it says "This image was created in Australia ...", so does this mean any images created by an Australian outside of Australia before 1955 is not in the public domain. I am thinking Frank Hurley here and his shots from Antartica and World War I. Anyone care to clarify. Nomadtales 22:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I think the copyright holder for Hurley's WWI photos is the Australian government (ie., Crown copyright) seeing as he was a temporary captain in the AIF. Secondly, copyright depends on who owns the copyright and where the copyright material is used, not where it was created. Geoff/Gsl 21:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not crown copyright, that argument has been had over on Oz notice board. Anything before 1955 regardless of who took it is now public domain. I think the copyright is not just if the photo was taken in Australia (although this in itself is questionable, are photos taken by foriegner in Australia, Australian property?) but taken by an Australian. So perhaps the wording may need to be changed in the template? Nomadtales 22:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

the provisions of the Australian Copyright Act only cover Australian citizens. Xtra 22:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if photos taken by official war photographers such as Hurley and Parer weren't crown copyright. I would think if you were commissioned to take photos by the government, and paid for it, then the government would hold the copyright. But, as you say, the identity of the copyright holder is irrelevant for Hurley's WWI photos as under crown or normal copyright, they are now public domain in Australia. Geoff/Gsl 22:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, so can anybody agree that using the word in, in the template should be changed to by. So it reads something like "This image was created by an Australian .... " Nomadtales 23:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Geoff/Gsl 01:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright applies to more than photos we should probably reword the template to make that clear. --Martyman-(talk) 09:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restored US copyrights

This is a great template for explain AU copyright law, but some of the works it describes as PD are actually under US copyright since the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994, now at 17 U.S.C. §104A. Older works may still be under US copyright if they were registered in the US and renewed at the correct time (but nothing older than 1923). I would suggest adding the following to the template. Physchim62 (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The United States copyright in this Australian image was restored by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994, currently 17 U.S.C. §104A, if it falls into one of the categories below. In addition, the work may be subject to a subsisting United States copyright if it was first published on or after 1923-01-01.
Such images may only be used on Wikipedia if they fall under our fair use policy.

Type of material		Automatically under US copyright if ...
A	Photographs or other works published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown:	taken or published on or after 1946-01-01
B	Photographs (except A):	taken on or after 1946-01-01
C	Artistic works (except A & B):	the creator died on or after 1946-01-01
D	Published editions¹ (except A & B):	first published on or after 1971-01-01
E	Commonwealth or State government owned² photographs:	first published on or after 1946-01-01