Talk:Foreign and Commonwealth Office Collection

Tristan Relief Fund

Hi,

With respect to this image: File:St Helena 1961 Tristan Relief Fund postcard.jpg, I have been thinking about the copyright; obviously the postcard was stamped as surcharged in 1961 but the stamps that were used pre-date the surcharge. If the underlying postage stamps were published in 1960 or earlier, then Crown Copyright has already expired and there is no real argument that the surcharge introduced a fresh copyright as (a) these were simple overstamps with no new creative content (b) Crown Copyright does not apply to the overstamp as these were never recognized by the Crown. Any thoughts as to whether this means than we can consider the postcard image already out of copyright? Cheers --Fæ (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Fae, I agree the overprint is simple text and insufficient to create a new work for copyright purposes. As for the the underlying stamps, these were the 1961 South African decimal currency version of an earlier 1960 set in £,s,d, which were identical apart from having the value in "old money". I have just uploaded an image here: [:commons:File:Tristan da Cunha 1960 Marine Life stamps.jpg 1960 set.] The 1960 set is definitely out of copyright so logically the 1961 set should also be as the change of currency would not be enough to constitute a new work for copyright purposes. There is, however, the matter of the message which, being written by a civil servant, would I assume also be crown copyright and therefore presumably not out of copyright until much later. See "unpublished works" here: National Archives. (There is also the small matter of any BL sensibilities about the use of this image.) Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point on the unpublished rationale, I had assumed this was unofficial correspondence but agree that it may be interpreted to fall into that category. Cheers Fæ (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I honestly think you are overstretching matters to suggest the written text on the postcard attains Crown Copyright because it was written by a civil servant and therefore is an unpublished. Regarding the stamps themselves, either way we only have to wait until next January 1 for them to fall out of copyright even if we split hairs over the issue date; the design elements are the same of those previously issued with a slightly altered denomination value. One another point to do with non-free images, where an article can have a free image added then the use of a non-free image should not be added as the rationale fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable… that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose). On that basis, irrespective of the argument concerning the copyright status of File:St Helena 1961 Tristan Relief Fund postcard.jpg, it should be easy enough to find some freely licenced images to illustrate the article Foreign and Commonwealth Office Collection, even if they are not images of the actual stamps in the collection. My 2¢. ww2censor (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As the letter was from the Governor to the Colonial Office, it may well fall under unpublished correspondence, it may seem debatable but if there is doubt we ought to err on the side of caution. As for the replicability issue, to illustrate any of the philatelic collections it would seem rather odd to use an image of something not in the collection even if it is similar. It would be a bit like using a photo of an Obama impersonator or a past President to illustrate Barack Obama. Personally I would argue that it might be better to leave off all illustrations for such an article rather than provide a misleading appearance. Fæ (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you have got the slightly wrong end of the stick here. Even though the letter is from the Governor to the Colonial Office it may be unpublished correspondence but can the correspondence really be considered as Crown Copyright work. Personally I doubt it. Regarding the replaceability, I am not suggesting using something that looks similar, but an identical stamp of the same issue, or one that is no longer copyright, if such stamps exist. Can you tell the difference between one stamp from a sheet to another if it is not a specifically identifiable one? Of course not. I'm all for being on the side of caution. ww2censor (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this not one of the stamps mentioned in the article? ww2censor (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That is one of the stamps mentioned and you are correct that in many cases you won't be able to tell one item from another, however, although I have not seen the collection I am sure it contains many items unique to it such as the postcard and they are the best items to illustrate the article. We should only use a similar item when nothing else is available. As for the copyright issue, I am not a copyright lawyer and it is a notoriously tricky area but I think copyright in the UK arises automatically. You don't need to assert it or register it or include the © symbol, it just happens. I don't think that Crown Copyright is any different in that respect and as far as I know there is no exemption for routine correspondence. The British National Archives specifically say that "Most material originated by ministers and civil servants is protected by Crown copyright." although they don't mention correspondence. Despite being on a postcard this is clearly still "unpublished" work even though everyone who handled the postcard could easily read the content. This was a postcard from a Governor to a Minister, clearly on official business, and only on a postcard I think because the postcard also was sold to aid the Tristan victims and the Governor wanted the Minister to see what they were doing. (see wording in top left corner). Philafrenzy (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Next time you are in the British Library you should take a look, the postcard is on display in the racks available to the public on the 1st floor. It has a display tray to itself. In terms of representing the collection, this postcard is undoubtedly the prime representative item and that rationale is the main point for the fair use rationale. It's quite hard to imagine how else to represent the collection apart from taking photos of the items in the display area, unfortunately there are signs explicitly forbidding us to do this. Fæ (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting as this debate is, on a purely pragmatic note I hadn't realised that there was already a full size image of the card at the BL website which I have linked to in the article. It would be better to have our own image on Commons but this is almost as good. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)