Talk:Copyright expiration in Australia
|WikiProject Australia / Law||(Rated Start-class)|
Kudos to Astrokey44 for the initiative and effort in compiling the information for this new article. However, since this article is in the Main namespace, and several passages used here first appeared on various Talk pages (ie not written or intended as "article style"), the article probably needs further parsing: some statements might constitute "original research" and/or "personal opinion". For example, some of the discussion here about whether Institutions do/do not have claims of copyright over faithful reproductions of PD works had originally been written more as an opinion, rather than reportage on what notable authorities have to say on the subject. Just a note of caution, but it should not be too troublesome to recast the text in more neutral, referenced terms.--cjllw | TALK 23:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, the discussion that was happening over there was really useful and I thought it deserved its own article. It does need alot of editing and it would be good if it were looked over by the same people involved in that discussion. Maybe the talk sections there should be copied across to the talk here? Astrokey44 23:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Theres several discussions here at AWNB: Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Crown_copyright and Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Removing_non-free_images (it will probably be put into archive 14 eventually); and also some of the discussion is also here Template talk:PD-Australia -----Astrokey44 05:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Expiration of Australian copyrights might sound better Astrokey44 05:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
From the first paragraph: "If the author is known it is 50 years after the author's death if pre 1955 or 70 years if post 1955."
When talking about "pre 1955" and "post 1955", is that referring to the date of the author's death, or the date that the work was first published? In other words, for a work published in 1954, whose author died in 1956, would the copyright expire in 2004 or 2024? - James Foster 16:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Phrasing, and inaccuracies, and other problems
I see that this article was born as discussions on variuous talk pages. It desperately needs an overhaul to remove informal language. Furthermore, it is incorrect in its comparison with U.S. copyright law. Please see WP:PD#Country-specific rules for the correct rule. The January 1, 1996 date is important: if a work entered the public domain after that date in Australia, it is still copyrighted in the U.S. That concerns all photographs published first in Australia on or after january 1, 1946, as well as other works where the author died 1946 or later. Hirtle's chart is useful, but one must read it carefully! Lupo 15:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The phrase "Photographs taken since 1955 will not be in the public domain for at least 20 years..." is highly misleading because it implies that the copyright term was "70 years since creation" when in fact it is "70 years p.m.a." when the author is known and "70 years since publication" for anonymous or pseudonymous photographs, and perpetual for unpublished photographs. The article later cites the relevant infosheet, where the rules are given correctly. Lupo 15:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Much of this text are quotes from the Australian Copyright Act or the infosheet. Apart from the fact that I believe the amount quoted is disproportional (and thus a stretch of "fair use"), please note that:
- the Copyright Act is under Australian Crown copyright, which, I believe, requires faithful reproduction. On a Wiki, where anyone can edit, we just cannot guarantee this.
- the infosheets are "© Australian Copyright Council 2005", and this Australian Copyright Council does not seem to be a government body but an "independent not for profit organisation".
Lupo 15:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Analysis of these laws (including much of the relation to the U.S. copyright law, and in particular the aforementioned rule) is original research unless you can source it properly to external sources. It would be fine on some page in the Wikipedia:-space, but not in article space. Lupo 15:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Lupo, you are correct about the genesis of this article, which as earlier noted came from talk pages when the topic was being discussed generally between editors. Since it was first transferred to the main article space, a little (but not enough) has been done to article-fy it into a more appropriate form; other priorities have taken precendence, I suppose. Since you seem to be well-informed on the topic, you'd be most welcome to effect root-and-branch changes to it, particularly if (ironically) sections of it may be copyright infringements themselves. I presume the solution would be to merely link to the external copy of the copyright act itself.--cjllw | TALK 02:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some consideration of video materials as well? Some photographs are actually stills from films, and so the question that comes to my is are the stills, as photographs, indications that film is also public domain if created before 1955? Or is there a special law regarding film? (Dewobroto (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC))
Copyright of pictures and the National Library of Australia
This Wikipedia article as at 28 Jan 2014 discusses the policy of the Natonal Library of Australia (NLA) with regard to copyright of their picture holdings. The discussion now appears to be out of date, as it would seem that the NLA has now substantially modified its position. The key NLA document now is Rights and the Pictures Collection where it states clearly that "Photographs taken before 1 January 1955 are all out of copyright"; but in regard to publishing, "Should you wish to publish material from the Library's Pictures Collection, you will need to declare your intention to the Library as custodian of the material." This change puts this Wikipedia article well out of date. The article has been structured as an argument, which relies on the NLA's apparent position in the past (but not now - and note that the article's citation link to NLA now says nothing about copyright). The argument has been well superseded by events, and the article will have to change. It will be a major task to unpick and rewrite this article. I haven't got the time (or para-legal skills) to do this, but it would be excellent if somone does. Stringybark (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Update: I have just now added material into the article that states the nub of NLA's current "it may be out of copyright, but we're still the custodian" position on pre-1956 pictures, but I have made no attempt to remove the contradictory, now outdated beginning of the paragraph (along with its bland citation link) as this will lead to a cascade of necessary changes to the article. Messy perhaps, but importantly readers will at least be able to use the citation I provide, so that they can be alert to the current position. If you're the page expert here, don't just delete what I've added, but make the necessary changes to bring this article into line. Stringybark (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)