Template talk:PD-UKGov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Gratuitous section heading[edit]

This seems more a Hoax Template to be than a serious one. I cannot find any evidence at http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/conf/dac/en/sterling/sterling.html

Then you are a liar. To quote from that source:
"Crown copyright under section 163 subsists
(a) for 125 years from the end of the year in which the work was made, or
(b) if the work is published commercially within 75 years after the end of the year in which it was made, then protection lasts for 50 years from the end of the year in which it was published (s.163(3))."
Go away troll. David Newton 11:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What does the word "commercially" mean in this context? It isn't in the template. Thue | talk 12:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It essentially means published by HMSO or another commercial publisher (like Frank Cass for official histories published currently). For photographs it does not actually have effect at the moment, but it would be a useful addition to the template to further clarify matters.
The reason it is not operative at the moment is that Crown copyright of photographs is still governed by the old rules on photograph copyright, ie it does not matter whether the phototgraph is published or unpublished: it is still out of copyright after 50 years. That changes when photographs taken after 30th June 1957 under Crown copyright protection come out of copyright. That date is when the Copyright Act 1956 came into force, which made a distinction between published and unpublished photos. After that there will be no more unpublished photos out of Crown copyright protection until 2081 under the 125 years from creation rule.
So, after the photographs taken in the first half of 1957 come out of copyright at the end of 2007, only commercially published photos will come out of copyright until 2081 when unpublished photos from the second half of 1957 emerge from copyright protection. I will make the necessary changes to the template. David Newton 13:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks :). Doesn't clause 3 needs to say that the work must have been published commercially? If I read you correctly then items in that category can't dodge the "published commercially" clause because they aren't photos. Thue | talk 14:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No. If you read the PDF file which is linked to in the template, you will see that prior to 1957 it is only engravings that need to be published commercially to forfeit copyright protection. Photographs prior to 1957 forfeit it after 50 years whether published or not. The distinction for other artistic works, ie things like paintings and sculptures, comes from 1989 when the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 came into force. From then on they need to be distinguished in terms of commercial publication or not. Since 50 years after 1989 is 2039 somehow I'm not especially worried about that one at the moment! David Newton 14:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks again :). Thue | talk 15:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Duration of copyright in the UK[edit]

This template refers to the 1956 and 1988 duration of copyright in the UK, but hasn't this been increased (retroactively) to seventy years? Can't find the reference at the moment, and I'm 1000 km from the nearest UK law library... Physchim62 11:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Ordinary copyrights have been increased by 20 years retrospectively. That happened in 1995. Crown copyright operates under a set of different duration rules and its length has not been increased. David Newton 13:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

relation to {{CrownCopyright}}[edit]

Is this basically the expired version of {{CrownCopyright}}? I find it interesting that this template links to Crown copyright but doesn't actually mention it anywhere. Thanks, pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Commons template[edit]

Also, the commons template commons:Template:PD-BritishGov just says more that 50 years ago. Should this be changed to 1956, and then each January increment the year? Because unless 1956 is significant, "more than 50 years ago" actually seems a more convenient way to put it. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The commons template has switched back to use "1956", but they do it with an #expr statement in the template, so it doesn't need constant updating, like so: "prior to 1968". Does it seem like a good idea to change this template to match? Carl Lindberg 07:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why "before 1 June 1957"?[edit]

Surely Crown Copyright lasts until the end of the year in which 50 years have elapsed since publication? That means that at this point, the cutoff date is 31 December 1957. Since the "50-year" cutoff now reaches a point more recent than 1 June 1957, isn't the "1 June" condition now rather irrelevant? (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Quoting from above: "That date is when the Copyright Act 1956 came into force", so not when the copyright expired. All those creations have copyright expired. Those created later are under the new act and have not expired copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Rename to Template:PD-UKGov[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:PD-BritishGovTemplate:PD-UKGov – This would be the correct name for the relevant governing body for UK copyright law – Unless Wikipedia is doing yet another balkanisation of Northern Ireland.

I raise this trivia because the latest make-work scheme for the usual suspects is to start bulk renaming the correct {{PD-UKGov}} link on image pages (which has for years been a redirect to the body of the template here) to an incorrect template call to {{PD-BritishGov}}. This is both pointless and if anything, less correct. Let us sort this out properly instead. --Relisted. walk victor falk talk 14:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Andy Dingley (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Sounds reasonable, but are you ok with the current title remaining as a redirect? United Kingdom says "British" is a demonym for the UK, which I think is borne out by common usage. As far as I know, there isn't a distinct demonym for England, Scotland, and Wales on their own, nor is there a very good reason to have one. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
It's reasonable to redirect from one to the other (to be honest, either way). They generally are interchangeable and the confusion (even within GB) is immense. Besides which, we don't want to have to change links to this massively used template.
All I'm really trying to achieve is to head off the utterly pointless change going on at present to switch to a less accurate name. If we change anything, it should be both small and an improvement, not a massive task to make things worse. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.