Talk:Towrang Convict Stockade

@The Drover's Wife: The Ian Berger source, Statement of Heritage Impact on Widening and intersection improvements on the Hume Highway at Towrang & Carrick Roads: review of environmental factors was published under a copyright held by the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW. That agency was covered by an agreement with the Copyright Agency for the use of content in reliance on the government statutory licence until 30 June 2012. However, an agreement with NSW government agencies is currently under negotiation. That would seem to preclude the usage of copyrighted material published by the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW, under which Berger's document was published. To verify this, I have started a discussion here on whether or not the usage of materials published by the Australian Government should be done while the status of those documents is under active negotiation. Your input would be welcomed. Thank you!  spintendo  08:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

References

@Spintendo: You seem to be a bit confused. This article uses CC-BY licensed material from the New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage. The Berger document is a referenced source, not something whose text is actually used in this article. No copyrighted material from the Roads and Traffic Authority is used in this article. The copyright status of a referenced source is completely irrelevant - one would expect that it, like most other sources, would be copyrighted. The Office of Environment and Heritage material is released under CC-BY 4.0. A private business claiming that they have been "in negotiation" to manage copyright for government organisations since 2012 doesn't change the fact that many, many government departments have decided to instead release material under free licenses during that time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Curiously enough I read the Ian Berger source while drafting the paper work associated with the Commonwealth funding for the project. It was fairly comprehensive from memory. It is rather inconvenient that government agencies feel the need to claim copyright over documents that they have commissioned even though those documents are never issued commercially and are then archived or destroyed never to be seen again.--Grahame (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

As the person who generated the draft Wikipedia article, I can say with 100% certainty that the Wikipedia article incorporated material only from the NSW SHR (as attributed) as I have never read the Berger document. I do not know the history of the development of the heritage register entry (but note these can be updated over time) nor of the Berger document. If there is overlap between these two documents, then it is for the relevant authors to do any necessary attribution of one another as appropriate. If the Berger paper was prepared for the NSW Govt under some commercial arrangements, then there may have been information shared or copyright or other licensing assigned as part of that commercial relationship, and I don’t think we have any way of knowing. The WP article is correctly attributed as per its creation. Kerry (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)