Commons:Deletion requests/File:35 near Cameron Lake.png
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It's not clear that {{PD-Canada}} applies. The date appears to be the creation date, so we don't know whether point 1 applies (we need the publication date). Point 2 would apply if we knew it wasn't subject to Crown copyright, but it appears that it is. (NB - same issue of taking date of creation as date of publication affects most files in Category:Historical roads in Ontario, and maybe many more PD-Canada files.) Rd232 (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- If a photo is taken by the government, and available for inspection to the general public (via freedom of information laws or something similar), wouldn't that be published? I'd lean
Keep, though the publication date is clearly an assumption at this point, and could change if better information comes to light. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- If it can help (I'm not sure if it does), the relevant definition of "publication" in the Canadian Copyright Act, in its section 2.2, is "making copies of a work available to the public". Of course, this displaces the question to what is the exact meaning of "making copies available to the public". To take an optimistic interpretation, it might mean, as you suggested above, that the work is published when its copyright owner makes it available for inspection to the public (with or without a possibility to obtain reproductions?). If such availability did not occur at a previous time, perhaps it might be assumed that it occurs at least when the material becomes available at an archiving service open to the public, after the material has been transferred there by its copyright owner. This would displace the question again to knowing the year when the material became available at the archive. The date of the transfer is often documented in the archive notices, so it can be possible in many cases to know that date. About the Cameron lake photo, is the year of its transfer known, and, if so, and in the absence of more information, could it be considered the year of publication? However, that would probably not help much, because it is likely that the archiving occurred in the recent decades, and the archiving date may still miss the condition "published before 1962" (50 years) to be in the public domain in Canada, and it would be even more likely to miss the condition "published before 1946" (50 years before the URAA date) to be in the public domain in the United States. It is always a problem when archives do not document the first publication date of Crown photographs. To their defense, that's probably because they themselves don't know that information. I would be very happy if we could find a way to consider that photographs like this are in the public domain. I even think I wouldn't object if Commons simply decided that, in the case of Crown photographs, the year of creation, if known, would be assumed, by default, to be also the year of publication, unless there is some information or at least some good reason to believe that the publication year is different. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- The URAA date does not apply to crown copyright. Full stop! Crown copyright is the COPYRIGHT HOLDER EXPLICITLY RELEASING ITS CONTENT TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AT THE END OF 50 YEARS. - Floydian (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- A provision in a law of the federal Parliament of Canada about the duration of copyright in Canada can certainly not be interpreted as being a decision by the government of the province of Ontario to release the rights it has in the United States. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Crown copyright is a single law that applies to both federal and provincial governments, so the rules apply the same to both. I can provide an email from the senior copyright advisor of Ontario (Carolyn Grey) to back this up. The Crown Copyright Act states that after 50 years, material becomes public domain, not after 50 years crown copyright expires. Nobody, including the almighty United States, can turn around and say "Well we've extended the copyright per URAA". No. The copyright expires, material becomes public domain worldwide, as per the conditions set out by the copyright holder. - Floydian (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- A provision in a law of the federal Parliament of Canada about the duration of copyright in Canada can certainly not be interpreted as being a decision by the government of the province of Ontario to release the rights it has in the United States. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- The URAA date does not apply to crown copyright. Full stop! Crown copyright is the COPYRIGHT HOLDER EXPLICITLY RELEASING ITS CONTENT TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AT THE END OF 50 YEARS. - Floydian (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I can't see FOI being relevant to publication. Even if there was an FOI at the time, and even if the photo was covered in theory, you never know whether an FOI exemption will be applied until you ask. Besides, half the time with FOI you don't know what's available to ask for it; if you don't know the photo exists to ask for it, I don't see how it can possibly be considered "published". Rd232 (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- If it can help (I'm not sure if it does), the relevant definition of "publication" in the Canadian Copyright Act, in its section 2.2, is "making copies of a work available to the public". Of course, this displaces the question to what is the exact meaning of "making copies available to the public". To take an optimistic interpretation, it might mean, as you suggested above, that the work is published when its copyright owner makes it available for inspection to the public (with or without a possibility to obtain reproductions?). If such availability did not occur at a previous time, perhaps it might be assumed that it occurs at least when the material becomes available at an archiving service open to the public, after the material has been transferred there by its copyright owner. This would displace the question again to knowing the year when the material became available at the archive. The date of the transfer is often documented in the archive notices, so it can be possible in many cases to know that date. About the Cameron lake photo, is the year of its transfer known, and, if so, and in the absence of more information, could it be considered the year of publication? However, that would probably not help much, because it is likely that the archiving occurred in the recent decades, and the archiving date may still miss the condition "published before 1962" (50 years) to be in the public domain in Canada, and it would be even more likely to miss the condition "published before 1946" (50 years before the URAA date) to be in the public domain in the United States. It is always a problem when archives do not document the first publication date of Crown photographs. To their defense, that's probably because they themselves don't know that information. I would be very happy if we could find a way to consider that photographs like this are in the public domain. I even think I wouldn't object if Commons simply decided that, in the case of Crown photographs, the year of creation, if known, would be assumed, by default, to be also the year of publication, unless there is some information or at least some good reason to believe that the publication year is different. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- The date would be based on what appears on the archive record, which I'd assume to be the publication date. Irregardless, the photo would have been published within a year of being taken (in the annual report) if it was ever published. Canadian government content up to 1961 is public domain, so this would be a rather upsetting and overzealous application of the precautionary principle. One of the principal reasons I continue to upload my content to en.wiki with keep local tags. - Floydian (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I see no reason to assume the archive record date is the publication date; it is far more natural, without any further information, to take it as creation date. And if you don't know it was published earlier, then per COM:PRP we need to take the earliest date we're sure of (per Asclepias above, the archival date). There is nothing overzealous here - you can't go around assuming things were published without some evidence to support the assumption. Rd232 (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then delete the friggen photo as a copyvio and delete my Commons account. I'm tired of this shitfest, giving photographers hell, giving archivists hell, giving people that want to... you know... document human history, hell. Pick pick pick, maybe 1 in 100,000 will actually be an actionable copyright infringement. We can't assume the date on the photo is the publication date nor that it was published within the first 25 years after it was made, but we can assume it is the creation date and that the photo was then published after 1961 to renew the copyright on it. I'll happily delete the several hundred photos that I have uploaded from the Department of Highways fonds, go to the library today to grab a citation for the publication in annual reports, and upload all of them to en.wiki where they will no longer be an issue. Works for me, gets more of the content I've uploaded off this barge. - Floydian (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand the basic concept of COM:PRP: it is not to assume that the file is in copyright, it is to require a reasonable standard of evidence that the file is not (if it's claimed to be PD, as here). For instance, if you show that the relevant archives believe the date given to be the publication date and not the creation date, that would do as evidence. We can't go around making assumptions that may get us and re-users into legal trouble if the assumptions are not reasonable. It is not reasonable, absent further evidence, to assume that every government photo found in an archive was published within 25 years of creation - it was probably either published soon after creation (date?), or only when transferred to the archive (date?). I doubt English Wikipedia will be any happier making the assumption you want to make, BTW, but YMMW. Rd232 (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I do understand it, especially that big honker at the beginning: "in good faith a repository of media files which to the best of our knowledge are free or freely-licensed.; clearly the best of my semi-expertise knowledge is not good enough, nor is a good faith assumption (there's that word again) being made that the photo was published within a year of its creation as opposed to lying in a box for years before some official saw it and said "Hey these should be in an archive". In 1941, if it didn't get published, it didn't get developed. This is the reason why I've stopped uploading photos here (along with the broken OTRS system that harasses the people kind enough to donate their materials) and why I've gone through all the hoops to see to it that they never get uploaded to this hellhole. Yes, Wikipedia is far more relaxed, and worst comes to worst I can tag FUR on photos that are picked out by volunteers as perhaps, possibly, maybe, not being public domain because they weren't "published" until they were donated 40 years after being created. Do we have even a single example of a copyright holder pursuing a reuser of a photo from an archive because they believed the work to be public domain? Anywhere in the world? Thought not. Precautionary OCD principle, in my personal opinion. - Floydian (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- In 1941, if it didn't get published, it didn't get developed. - I find that slightly hard to believe (assuming you mean everything that got developed got published), but if you can back that up, that would help. Do we have even a single example.... is precisely covered by COM:PRP. BTW, "good faith" applies to intention, not facts. Rd232 (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- It was the end of the depression, and it was the middle of the war. Money did not get spent, even a cent, unless it was to be used for a worthy purpose. They halted construction of roads throughout the province, yet you are so precautionary that you're willing to believe they sent guys out to take pretty pictures, then developed them to stick them in a box and seal them in cold-storage? I don't see any facts from you, just precautionary principles being overextended to cover the fine strings of legality. I'm an editor, not a lawyer, so I suppose that's why I stand out at Commons. Delete, so I can go to the library when I next get a chance, get the page number it appears on, reupload it to en.wiki as the public domain image that it is, and never upload another file here. Problem solved. - Floydian (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, I find it rather amusing that a discussion ongoing at the talk page of the policy you keep pointing out is getting at the legality creep that defines this nomination, and really this entire project. - Floydian (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- The talk page discussion, insofar as it's relevant, is about interpretation. This is different than the issue here, which is a lack of evidence as to fact (publication date). Rd232 (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, I find it rather amusing that a discussion ongoing at the talk page of the policy you keep pointing out is getting at the legality creep that defines this nomination, and really this entire project. - Floydian (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- It was the end of the depression, and it was the middle of the war. Money did not get spent, even a cent, unless it was to be used for a worthy purpose. They halted construction of roads throughout the province, yet you are so precautionary that you're willing to believe they sent guys out to take pretty pictures, then developed them to stick them in a box and seal them in cold-storage? I don't see any facts from you, just precautionary principles being overextended to cover the fine strings of legality. I'm an editor, not a lawyer, so I suppose that's why I stand out at Commons. Delete, so I can go to the library when I next get a chance, get the page number it appears on, reupload it to en.wiki as the public domain image that it is, and never upload another file here. Problem solved. - Floydian (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- In 1941, if it didn't get published, it didn't get developed. - I find that slightly hard to believe (assuming you mean everything that got developed got published), but if you can back that up, that would help. Do we have even a single example.... is precisely covered by COM:PRP. BTW, "good faith" applies to intention, not facts. Rd232 (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I do understand it, especially that big honker at the beginning: "in good faith a repository of media files which to the best of our knowledge are free or freely-licensed.; clearly the best of my semi-expertise knowledge is not good enough, nor is a good faith assumption (there's that word again) being made that the photo was published within a year of its creation as opposed to lying in a box for years before some official saw it and said "Hey these should be in an archive". In 1941, if it didn't get published, it didn't get developed. This is the reason why I've stopped uploading photos here (along with the broken OTRS system that harasses the people kind enough to donate their materials) and why I've gone through all the hoops to see to it that they never get uploaded to this hellhole. Yes, Wikipedia is far more relaxed, and worst comes to worst I can tag FUR on photos that are picked out by volunteers as perhaps, possibly, maybe, not being public domain because they weren't "published" until they were donated 40 years after being created. Do we have even a single example of a copyright holder pursuing a reuser of a photo from an archive because they believed the work to be public domain? Anywhere in the world? Thought not. Precautionary OCD principle, in my personal opinion. - Floydian (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand the basic concept of COM:PRP: it is not to assume that the file is in copyright, it is to require a reasonable standard of evidence that the file is not (if it's claimed to be PD, as here). For instance, if you show that the relevant archives believe the date given to be the publication date and not the creation date, that would do as evidence. We can't go around making assumptions that may get us and re-users into legal trouble if the assumptions are not reasonable. It is not reasonable, absent further evidence, to assume that every government photo found in an archive was published within 25 years of creation - it was probably either published soon after creation (date?), or only when transferred to the archive (date?). I doubt English Wikipedia will be any happier making the assumption you want to make, BTW, but YMMW. Rd232 (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then delete the friggen photo as a copyvio and delete my Commons account. I'm tired of this shitfest, giving photographers hell, giving archivists hell, giving people that want to... you know... document human history, hell. Pick pick pick, maybe 1 in 100,000 will actually be an actionable copyright infringement. We can't assume the date on the photo is the publication date nor that it was published within the first 25 years after it was made, but we can assume it is the creation date and that the photo was then published after 1961 to renew the copyright on it. I'll happily delete the several hundred photos that I have uploaded from the Department of Highways fonds, go to the library today to grab a citation for the publication in annual reports, and upload all of them to en.wiki where they will no longer be an issue. Works for me, gets more of the content I've uploaded off this barge. - Floydian (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I see no reason to assume the archive record date is the publication date; it is far more natural, without any further information, to take it as creation date. And if you don't know it was published earlier, then per COM:PRP we need to take the earliest date we're sure of (per Asclepias above, the archival date). There is nothing overzealous here - you can't go around assuming things were published without some evidence to support the assumption. Rd232 (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Problem: Commons:L#Canada says all photos taken before 1949 are PD. {{PD-Canada}} disagrees, saying that only applies to non-Crown Copyright (and for Crown Copyright, requires 50 years after publication). Rd232 (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I tend not to rely on Commons for legal advice. One page says this, another says that. CIPO deals with copyright and intellectual rights.[1] Bill C-32, which came into effect on January 1, 1999, changed the 50 years after creation rule to 50 years after death of the author. All non-crown Canadian-created materials created prior to that are public domain. Crown copyright has expired to PD on all images published before December 31, 1961. I wasn't aware of the publication rule for crown copyright before today, but its resting on the long shot that this image was not published for 25 years before being dug up and sent to an archive one day. I've gone through too many annual reports to be able to say with certainty that this appears in the report published March 31, 1941, but those are the only photos that tend to make it into our archive system unless explicitly marked otherwise (ie historical collection of photos donated in 1971)... but I hardly see how donating that dusty box in the cold storage office constitutes publication. - Floydian (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- those [annual report photos] are the only photos that tend to make it into our archive system unless explicitly marked otherwise - if it weren't for the qualifer "tend to" that would be getting us somewhere. Is there anything in writing on the subject (ideally on a website...)? Rd232 (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I can't say I've looked through the entire archive, so I can't make such a certain statement that applies to the entire collection. I can only base it on the thousands of photos that I have personally seen. I guess that's not precautionary enough. - Floydian (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- So, if we strip away your attitude, you're saying that you've seen thousands of photos in the archive, and they were all photos from annual reports? (Annual reports of what entity? You never said.) That's a significant factual claim we can maybe work with. Putting it together with what you said before, we can assume that (i) the photos of this type were all published in annual reports of entity X (ii) the photos were published within a year of creation (the date given being the creation date). Is that what you're saying? If so, then we can construct a source template for all photos of this type, which will justify the application of the PD-Canada tag for all of them. Rd232 (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- I could work with this. If the template included year and page numbers, it would allow me to verify uploads by others as well. In the case of my uploads, they are all from the Ontario Department of Highways and a significant portion (it would be difficult for me to determine which exactly) are photographs I've taken of the annual report. - Floydian (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, how about {{Ontario Department of Highways annual report}}? If you don't know the year of publication, you can give an estimate, like "c. 1941". We need 50 years before 1996 (to escape URAA), so then images before 1946 will be OK - or say before 1944 if we're estimating publication to be a year or two after creation. Rd232 (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Crown copyright isn't affected by URAA. See en:Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Copyright_confusion_on_the_Parliament_of_Canada_web_site. Otherwise, looks good! - Floydian (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, good; I put a note at Template_talk:PD-Canada#Crown_Copyright_and_URAA. Then images before 1962 will be OK with definite publication year, and before 1960 for estimated publication. Rd232 (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Awesome. I won't be at the library likely until September (once school resumes), but I'll make a mental note to look for these images and enter edition and page numbers. Thank you for putting up with my rather abrasive approach to commons. I've had a lot of trouble over the years with some of the systems in place here, so its a nice change of pace. - Floydian (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's OK; I know these issues can be very frustrating. I'm glad we were able to resolve this one with a Keep outcome. Rd232 (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Awesome. I won't be at the library likely until September (once school resumes), but I'll make a mental note to look for these images and enter edition and page numbers. Thank you for putting up with my rather abrasive approach to commons. I've had a lot of trouble over the years with some of the systems in place here, so its a nice change of pace. - Floydian (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, good; I put a note at Template_talk:PD-Canada#Crown_Copyright_and_URAA. Then images before 1962 will be OK with definite publication year, and before 1960 for estimated publication. Rd232 (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Crown copyright isn't affected by URAA. See en:Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Copyright_confusion_on_the_Parliament_of_Canada_web_site. Otherwise, looks good! - Floydian (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, how about {{Ontario Department of Highways annual report}}? If you don't know the year of publication, you can give an estimate, like "c. 1941". We need 50 years before 1996 (to escape URAA), so then images before 1946 will be OK - or say before 1944 if we're estimating publication to be a year or two after creation. Rd232 (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I could work with this. If the template included year and page numbers, it would allow me to verify uploads by others as well. In the case of my uploads, they are all from the Ontario Department of Highways and a significant portion (it would be difficult for me to determine which exactly) are photographs I've taken of the annual report. - Floydian (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- So, if we strip away your attitude, you're saying that you've seen thousands of photos in the archive, and they were all photos from annual reports? (Annual reports of what entity? You never said.) That's a significant factual claim we can maybe work with. Putting it together with what you said before, we can assume that (i) the photos of this type were all published in annual reports of entity X (ii) the photos were published within a year of creation (the date given being the creation date). Is that what you're saying? If so, then we can construct a source template for all photos of this type, which will justify the application of the PD-Canada tag for all of them. Rd232 (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I can't say I've looked through the entire archive, so I can't make such a certain statement that applies to the entire collection. I can only base it on the thousands of photos that I have personally seen. I guess that's not precautionary enough. - Floydian (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- those [annual report photos] are the only photos that tend to make it into our archive system unless explicitly marked otherwise - if it weren't for the qualifer "tend to" that would be getting us somewhere. Is there anything in writing on the subject (ideally on a website...)? Rd232 (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I tend not to rely on Commons for legal advice. One page says this, another says that. CIPO deals with copyright and intellectual rights.[1] Bill C-32, which came into effect on January 1, 1999, changed the 50 years after creation rule to 50 years after death of the author. All non-crown Canadian-created materials created prior to that are public domain. Crown copyright has expired to PD on all images published before December 31, 1961. I wasn't aware of the publication rule for crown copyright before today, but its resting on the long shot that this image was not published for 25 years before being dug up and sent to an archive one day. I've gone through too many annual reports to be able to say with certainty that this appears in the report published March 31, 1941, but those are the only photos that tend to make it into our archive system unless explicitly marked otherwise (ie historical collection of photos donated in 1971)... but I hardly see how donating that dusty box in the cold storage office constitutes publication. - Floydian (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not a problem. The section Commons:Licensing#Canada mentions only a few things. For the rest, including the rule about Crown copyright of section 12 of the Copyright Act, Commons:Licensing links to the flowchart for the information. I suppose that details can be duplicated in the already long Commons:Licensing page, if it is thought to be really necessary, but then the problem is more to decide subjectively what elements of the Copyright Act to mention and what elements to leave out. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well I expanded COM:L very slightly to clarify that the situation is different for Crown Copyright. Rd232 (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep Per discussion above, it seems clarified now that we can keep this image, and should apply the new {{Ontario Department of Highways annual report}} template to similar images to clarify their status. Rd232 (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
