Template talk:PD-Australia

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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? -- Moondyne ≡ talk 13:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).

I've updated the information sheet reference which has been updated to (Feb 2008) Kathleen.wright5 09:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain

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) (Feb 2008), generally copyright has expired as follows:

Australia

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! -- Moondyne ≡ talk 10:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. -- Moondyne ≡ talk 00:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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} -- Moondyne ≡ talk 01:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. -- Moondyne ≡ talk 03:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. -- Moondyne ≡ talk 14:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. -- Moondyne ≡ talk 03:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

United States

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

¹means 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.

Category:Australian public domain photographs

Can you explain why this affects articles that went into the public domain in Australia after 1946? I have to say that I'm pretty confused after reading the linked article. Rebecca 03:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from Australian Copyright Council As a result of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA), the period of protection for most material has been extended. There has, however, been no revival of any copyright that expired before 1 January 2005under the old rules., this is very specific as such this label is misleading and no images should be deleted based on this Gnan garra 08:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PDF files are available from http://www.copyright.org.au/information/introductory.htm -- Australian Copyright Council. The PDF specifically about "Copyright Duration" states in detail

From the Copyright act 1968 -- photographs (if taken before 1 May 1969, 50 years from the end of the year they were taken; on or after 1 May 1969, 50 years from the end of the year of first publication)

This was changed such that from 1st January 2007 the time period was extended to 70 after the death of the Photographer except where the copyright had expired before 1st January 2007, case in point works by Miles Franklin who died in 1954 expired at midnight on the 31st of December 2004. Gnan garra 13:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All this is true in so far as Australian copyright is concerned. However, the copyright restoration also affects US copyright, which have different expiry dates. It is possible for an image to be in the public domain in Australia, but still under copyright in the US: as such, we cannot use it except under fair use. Physchim62 (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once an image is in the Public domain then that is applied world wide, what this does is prevent US images published in Australia between 1946-and 1955 being released as PD. Gnan garra 00:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read circulars 38b and 15a about the US laws 38a relates to restoration of rights to works where the work is protected in its source country. 15a then states that "The Act provides no procedure for restoring protection for works in which copyright has been lost for any reason.". Restoration of copyright is only for the term of copyright in the source country it doesnt extend copyrights beyond that. Gnan garra 02:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is public domain in Australia, does not make it public domain in other countries. [5] (page 6) says: "Can I use a work that is still in copyright overseas, if copyright has expired here?.. If copyright in a photo has expired in Australia because it was taken, say, in 1926 or 1953, then you may reproduce it in a book in Australia. If, however, you wanted to print or distribute the book overseas, you would need to check that copyright in the photograph has expired in each country where the book is to be printed or distributed." --Astrokey44 09:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote which Gnagarra gives above applies to the loss of U.S. copyright, not to the loss of source country copyright. The assertion that "once an image is Public Domain then that is applied worldwide" is, unfortunately, untrue. Physchim62 (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

I find it rather disturbing that Physchim62 has chosen to protect this article especially as an involved party to the discussion. I would also like to point that it is also rather pointless as both User:Rebecca and myself are both admins. Secondly I find the lack of good faith expressed rather offensive. I also assume that the protect is because Phychim62 thinks there is some kind of edit war occuring yet as per WP:PPOL admins should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people.. Given this total disrespect, the amount personal offense I take from this action, I have no further intention of continuing this discussion either here or on commons. Gnan garra 17:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have unprotected the template. The changes made do not apply (nor are they claimed to apply) to the vast majority of articles with this tag, so having the changes would lead to large confusion when a "this should be deleted" tag appears on every Australian public domain image. If it is established that this is an actual copyright concern for images post-1946 (and Physchim62 would do to explain why, something he's been very shy about doing), then he should create a new tag for those articles - and it should be one which is considerably more clear about the matter than his original draft. Moreover, protecting a page you are in an edit dispute over (especially in light of the above ramifications of your incompetent edit to the page) is a flagrant abuse of admin powers. Rebecca 01:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are both admins, you should know better. You should be aware:

that most copyright tags are protected, for reasons which I would have thought fell into the realms of common sense
that you do not have consensus for the changes you wish to make, especially for a sensitive template such as a copyright tag
where to go to obtain advice on the copyright issues which seem to bother you (If, by chance, you don't know, there is a helpful link in the title of the section below, which has been there since February)
that this template does not say that image should be deleted
that my talk page is open to you, and should have been used before reversing an admin action, and certainly before accusing me of "flagrant abuse of admin powers"

Physchim62 (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that such language is unhelpful, but your action was certainly against policy and not at all justified by your response above. I don't think it will aid discussion to point out the disingenuous elements of that response, but I hope that you can acknowledge misstepping here (even if only to yourself), and that all of you can work to develop a consensus.--cj | talk 16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need for new templates?

A template that says an image might be PD in the U.S. isn't very useful for WP deciding whether the image can be classified as free or not free.

Can I suggest two new templates are needed: {{PD-AU-US}} for images that are believed PD in Australia and the U.S.; and {{PD-AU-not-US}} for images that are free in Australia but not in the U.S.

The present template should then be deprecated, in favour of the more specific ones. Jheald 15:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On an ideal Wikipedia, all the PD-country templates would be deprecated. They are leftovers from the days before we realised that PD-in-a-country doesn't mean PD worldwide. Physchim62 (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would not make any sense. The images covered by this template are PD in both the US and Australia (except for, perhaps, the very small subset of these images being discussed above) - but if they were American images, quite a number would not be PD in either. On a similar note, please stop re-adding the template to this article. By doing this, you are tagging every Australian PD article (not just those you think should be deleted) with a notice saying they are not PD, which is completely and demonstratably false. Rebecca 04:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca, have you read the addition? It said, "In addition, the work may be subject to a subsisting United States copyright if it was first published on or after January 1, 1923" (emphasis added). This is contradiction to your last sentence. --Iamunknown 19:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template itself is framed really unhelpfully. It looks at first glance like the templates for material that needs to be removed, and states at first "The United States copyright in this Australian image was restored by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994...". With the exception of the phrase "if it falls into one of the categories below", which is buried in the middle of the text, it looks exactly like a template for images that should be shot on sight. As such, there is a very real possibility that this could see indisputably public domain images deleted. We need a template to apply to the actual images affected by this (which is not very many, if it is indeed the case at all), and for gods sake, we need one that is actually clear on the detail of this - which the existing Aus-PD tag is, but this most certainly is not. Rebecca 01:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you hope to convince people of your position if you will not adopt a modicum of good faith and civility. I don't have time to explain the inicracies of U.S. restored copyright simply because I have to go around clearing up after you. If you wanted an explanation, you could always have asked at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, or read Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights: I can see no evidence that you have taken either of these elementary steps. As such, I have restored the version before your somewhat unhelpful interventions and protected the tempate for fourteen days so that a real consensus can be reached. Physchim62 (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have now flagrantly abused your admin powers a second time. I have asked a neutral admin to overturn the protection, and this has been done. This is a clear-cut as it comes, and you are looking at an arbitration action for abuse of your powers if you continue to protect the template. I'll put this once again: you are not a lawyer, let alone a copyright lawyer, and your interpretation of things has been contradicted by at least one other editor after doing research. If you wish to change the long-standing consensus version of this template, then please either a) explain why you think this is the case beyond aggressively asserting that it is so, or b) calm down and join us in seeking legal advice on the matter. And finally, please stop re-adding the template to this template in its current form - even if you are right about the copyright matter, as I have explained above, it is inappropriate and misleading to add it here, because it could very likely lead to indisputably public domain images being deleted due to its bad design and phrasing. Rebecca 01:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{sofixit}}: don't just revert, and certainly don't wheel war. I have asked you to suggest alternative dispute resolution, but you have not done so. The legal rationale behind the addition which I proposed above, and which another user decided to add, is at Template talk:PD-Australia/U.S. copyright issues, as it is a bit long for this page. Physchim62 (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sort of explanation which we've been asking for for some time (other editors have tried and failed to find it on their own). Had that been presented in response to the repeated earlier requests, and before the actions over the template, much of this nastiness would have been averted. As for the changes to the template, see below. Rebecca 01:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For works not in the public domain in the United States but in the public domain in Australia, apply {{Non-free fair use in}}; beyond that, if editors feel up to cataloging images on Wikipedia that are in the public domain in Australia but not in the United States, go ahead. --Iamunknown 21:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, there is no need for a seperate template for images which are PD in Australia but not PD in the US, because such images are not PD as far as Wikipedia is concerned: they can only be used under non-free content policy, and should not be tagged with a "PD" template. This template should be changed so that innocent users are not misled into thinking that a given image is PD when it isn't (under the terms of WP:PD). Physchim62 (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the link above, I agree. However, because of the problems I've outlined above, the draft template above (and which has been repeatedly added to the bottom of this template) it is not appropriate. Rather, I think we just need to change the dates on the current template to 1946 (instead of 1955), and clarify in the header that it is the copyright of these images in the United States that matters, instead of whether or not they are public domain in Australia. A link to the page that Physchim linked above, as well as the ACC sheet linked already, should provide sufficient explanation for anyone interested. Rebecca 01:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A more complete link is the page Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, although it is obviously not as specific, as it tries to cover all countries, not just Australia. I'm not sure your solution is 100% workable at the moment: there are images in the category which have been uploaded in good faith under the old template but which (by simple human error) are mistagged as WP-PD. As I've explained, IMHO, these will need to be placed in a non-free category, with all that that entails. There are about 1200 files in Category:Australian public domain photographs, which is a lot, but a manageable number to go through. I can't guarantee a timescale if it's just me who does it, although in an even trickier case at {{PD-Germany}} I got through over 300 images (including notifiying uploaders, resolving non-obvious cases etc.) in about six weeks. It's the project management of such things which actually takes the most time, in my experience... Still, feel free to post a suggestion for a new wording for this template if you wish. Physchim62 (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from. I think your tag above could be appropriate for this (as long as it is created as a seperate tag, and is not put in this one) if someone is prepared to go through and re-tag all those that were mistakenly tagged in the past. It would need to be reframed some as a "this is definitely non-free" instead of a "this might be non-free" tag, but I don't think that would require too many changes to its current state. I'd also point out that there are probably considerably more than 1200 files that will need to be sorted through, considering a lot of the Aus-PD stuff is now at Commons. I think this would allow us to get rid of the backlog - then changing this template as I suggested above could make sure it doesn't happen again. Rebecca 05:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting the link to Template talk:PD-Australia/U.S. copyright issues. From my reading of it (as a bush lawyer!) it seems that the guidance is that only a very small percentage of Australian PD-tagged images are likely to not be tagged correctly (I wouldn't be suprised if NONE of the images are tagged incorrectly given the low likelyhood of applications for US copyright covering them ever being made), and that we should assume good faith and not regard this issue as being any kind of crisis. That page seems to suggest that we work on the assumption that the images are in fact PD unless proven otherwise, which seems sensible given that only a few years worth of images are potentially risky, and very few of those images will have ever been registered in the US. --Nick Dowling 23:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it seems like I've not been clear enough again! There are two sets of images which might be incorrectly described as PD. For images published between 1923 and 1945 (subsisting copyright), I agree with you, we can probably assume that they weren't registered in the U.S. unless we have reason to believe otherwise, and so there's little if any problem. For images published in or after 1946 (restored copyright), registration in the U.S. is irrelevant to their current U.S. copyright status: they're protected under U.S. copyright until at least 2041. Physchim62 (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This table [6] is quite useful on different ways things can fall for U.S. law. It seems to me there could be a problem with any images under this tag that were published after 1945. Jheald 00:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving towards a compromise

Firstly, I apologize if I misrepresent anyone's argument from above. As I can see, the main actionable objection came from Rebecca. An excerpt of Rebecca's post is as follows.

"It looks at first glance like the templates for material that needs to be removed, and states at first "The United States copyright in this Australian image was restored by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994...". With the exception of the phrase "if it falls into one of the categories below", which is buried in the middle of the text, it looks exactly like a template for images that should be shot on sight" (diff).

I fully agree that, on a cursory reading, the proposed addition appears to assert that the United States copyright for all images have been restored (which is inaccurate). Thus I propose that we consider the contested addition, with the following change to the header.

"If this Australian image falls into one of the categories below, the United States copyright was restored by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 (17 U.S.C. §104A). Otherwise, if the work was published on or after January 1, 1923, it may be subject to a subsisting United States copyright.

"Such images may only be used on Wikipedia where there use is covered by our non-free content policy.

"Additionally, they should be tagged with a non-free image copyright tag."

As I read the modification, the sentence-construction issue is resolved (but please comment if I have missed something). We need to work on a compromise. Please discuss. Thanks, Iamunknown 06:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've already moved beyond this point. Physchim62 has been going through all the Aus-PD images and listing the affected ones - when that's done, we'll either need to adjust the current one to a "this is definitely non-free" or whack a generic non-free template on them. As I pointed out above, having taken these images out of the picture, simply changing the years from 1955 to 1946 and adding a few words to the header (including a link to Physchim's detailed explanation above) to explain the change would achieve the same ends without making the template any more confusing. Rebecca 09:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with Rebecca. Once we get the problem images out of the category, the change to the template becomes much simpler. As mentioned below, I'm in the process of checking all images at the minute (help is always welcome, there are still plenty of images whose date is not recorded on the image description page as it should be). If things are left to me, I will leave it until the latest possible moment to change the tags on these images, to try to stop any over-zealous admin deleting them before we've had a chance to get them in order! I don't see any policy problem in this—several admins are aware of the problem and it's in the process of being sorted out, so another couple of weeks with the wrong tag won't actually hurt anyone. All the same, if anyone's favorite image is marked with a red cross on the checklist, they are welcome to change the tag for an appropriate non-free tag with fair-use rationale: one less for the rest of us to do! Physchim62 (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, changing the dates (and adding a note why the dates are changed) as opposed to adding more template bloat sounds good. --Iamunknown 18:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Non-US_copyrights#Subsisting_copyrights

What about this case? SYSS Mouse 15:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

maps?

when does the copyright on maps expire, such as those in the National Library collection? --Astrokey44 11:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume that they are an artistic work (Category C)? enochlau (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There been a recent court decision on maps, it changed the way copyright applies, details are on the Australian copyright Council website. Gnan garra 07:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

according to [7] Australian copyright Council, maps where copyright is owned by the government(crown copyright) its 50 years, where its privately held the copyright is 70 years after the creators death, if author is unknown it 70 years after it was first published. First published has been determined by the Federal court as being when the map is handed over by the surveyor to the client, what this means is that if the client is the NSW government and the creator was the NSW government lands dept , the map was created in 1955 for use in a report that wasnt pbulished until 1960 the copyright on the map would have expired in 2005 Gnan garra 07:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image checking

If have compiled a list of all the images in Category:Australian public domain photographs at Template talk:PD-Australia/Image check in order to check for restored U.S. copyrights. So far, I have checked about 300 images (roughly a quarter of the total)—all help in checking is gratefully received. The number of "problem" images is quite small, as people can see from the first three sections of the list. There are also some images which are not properly sourced, which I've been noting as I come across them. Physchim62 (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What else needs to go with it

Hi, What other information should go along with this tag. I keep getting harassed by bots to have a fair use rationale. Is this correct considering it is public domain? The image I am referring to is Image:Univeristy of Adelaide around 1869.jpg Muzzamo 23:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only other information it should need is a link to the source. Having a "non-free" rationale template (as is there now) for a free image may be confusing the bots, but if they persist in tagging images already tagged as Aus-PD, please come back and post here, and it can be chased up with the bot owners. Rebecca 23:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link broken

The link http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/7942729524c8dbfec9a120.pdf (ACC Information Sheet G023v14 (Duration of copyright) (Feb 2008)) seems to be broken. The site copyright.org.au is running. --Quedel (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken again :( -- Nbound (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unpublished works

(See Also: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Australian_Images_-_Copyright)

This template mentions nothing of these, though these images make up a reasonably large proportion of AU images (archives, etc.), despite that they can be still covered by copyright in the US for upto 120years post creation. Thoughts? -- Nbound (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. But it's true for any country; it's not specific to Australia. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crown copyright

According to c:Template:PD-AustraliaGov, crown copyright expirations apply worldwide. Should we edit this template to reflect that? Wikiacc (¶) 16:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template for Australian pre-1926 photos

Hello people,

Summary

The {{PD-Australia}} template is out of date and in addition contains several anomalies. I am proposing a new template in relation to photographs taken before 1926 – the date at which, as I understand it, US copyright starts to develop ifs and buts.

After resolving that, I'll look at another template for 1926 to a later date. I would then be happy to collaborate to take a fresh look at other Australian copyright templates. Unifying the different renderings between Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia is also desirable, although that's outside my present skill set.

The shortcomings of PD-Australia

There are several things wrong with the {{PD-Australia}} template:

The document quoted as the authority for copyright policy is a secondary source (the Australian Copyright Council is an industry body) and dated 2014; a better, Australian Government, source issued in 2016 is available.

The template, with its five "types" and three notes (7+2 when rendered in Wikipedia), gives far more detail than needed for the simple policy pertaining to pre-1926 photographs.

The relevance of note 3 is not evident.

There is a note, "When using this template, please provide information of where the image was first published and who created it", but the means of doing that is unstated.

Most importantly, there is no provision for a note about the PD status in the US, which is essential.

If the {{PD-Australia}} template is used, it renders very differently in Commons compared with Wikipedia, in both text and appearance. If you're interested, you can see that on:

a Commons page

a Wikipedia page.

However, the template I envisage for pre-1926 photos would be entirely new.

Suggested solution

These are my thoughts so far about a solution, which I suggest should be incorporated into a new template (maybe it could be titled PD-AU-pre1926):

Public domain

This image is in the public domain because:

it was created in Australia before 1 January 1955: the Australian Government's guide to the Copyright Act 1968 (Short Guide to Copyright, November 2016) states on page 11, "The term of copyright protection for photographs taken before 1955, regardless of whether the author has since died or is still alive, has expired"
it was published before 1 January 1926 or registered with the United States Copyright Office before that date.

It is therefore compliant with the licensing policy of Wikimedia Commons.

Australia

United States

Public domain copyright templates – Australia

Key features of the text are:

The legislative basis for the photo's PD status in Australia is stated as a direct quote, with a link to it.

The US PD status is stated (but it would be good to be able to cite an equivalent reference to the Australian one), and the status is included within the template because it's an integral part of compliance with Wikimedia Commons licensing policy.

The fact of compliance is explicitly stated (because it logically follows if the two bullet points are true), avoiding the "messiness" of the various caveats in existing templates.

Over to you for comments ... Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 05:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would not support a new template for pre-1926 Australian photos. First, images that are PD in both Australia and the US should be moved to Commons. Second, images that must stay here (due to {{keep local}} or some other reason) can just be tagged with both {{PD-Australia}} and {{PD-US-expired-abroad}} (with pdsource=yes). An image can have two licensing templates; there's no need to go make new templates.

Regarding the problems with {{PD-Australia}}, yes it appears the version here is slightly out of date. There's no longer a need to distinguish between B1 and B2, or between E1 and E2. Bringing the version here in line with Commons is a good idea. Wikiacc (¶) 00:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for upgrades to the PD-Australia and PD-AustraliaGov templates

Dear fellow editors, I have been working on some suggestions for upgrades to the PD-Australia and PD-AustraliaGov templates, and for a new template for licensing Australian photographs. The suggestions encompass both the Commons and Wikipedia templates. If you would like to read/comment, please visit Template talk:PD-Australia at Commons. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 05:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]