Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paul Keating 1989 01.jpg
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.
Not PD - the CC notice on the National Archives of Australia website explicitly states that it does not cover items in its collection. Per the NAA factsheet on copyright (http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs08.aspx) this image created in 1989 is still under copyright. Nick-D (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. No one is claiming that this image is public domain. The NAA is an Australian government agency. Its copyright statement states that: "Save for the content on this website supplied by third parties, the National Archives logo and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, the National Archives has applied the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence". The image in question was produced by the Australian Overseas Information Service (OIS), a defunct government agency. The Australian government cannot be a third party to itself! Furthermore, because the OIS merged into the Department of Foreign Affairs of Trade (DFAT) in 1994, the copyright for the image is specifically held by DFAT, which has also released its archives under a CC-3.0 licence. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- You are deliberately ignoring the part of the NAA creative commons page you link to which is clearly titled "Collection copyright" and states that items in the collection have different copyright statuses. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- That section refers to the fact that the NAA hosts both government-produced/owned content (i.e., Crown Copyright) and privately-produced/owned (copyright is not held by the government). As stated above, this image falls into the first category and has thus been released under the Commons licence; ergo, it is suitable to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. (By the way, in future maybe post these all under the same header so we don't have to have the same conversation three separate times). Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- That is not correct at - you are - the NAA explains the copyright status of items in its collection in the factsheet linked above, which explicitly states that Commonwealth Government owns the copyright to the non-PD Commonwealth records (and then explains when this will expire for the different types of records), and also states that the Commonwealth has no say over the copyright status of the private items in the collection as it does not own them. Combined with the clear text of the CC page, it is quite clear that the collection is not CC. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing that the Commonwealth Government owns the copyright to this. I think you might be under a misapprehension about what the terms "public domain" and "copyright" mean. The copyright on this image will expire in 2039, at which point it will become public domain. Up until that point, the author (i.e., the Crown) has the right to control / limit its usage. Creative Commons licences do not extinguish copyright, they are merely a method of controlling how works are used. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- That is not correct at - you are - the NAA explains the copyright status of items in its collection in the factsheet linked above, which explicitly states that Commonwealth Government owns the copyright to the non-PD Commonwealth records (and then explains when this will expire for the different types of records), and also states that the Commonwealth has no say over the copyright status of the private items in the collection as it does not own them. Combined with the clear text of the CC page, it is quite clear that the collection is not CC. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- That section refers to the fact that the NAA hosts both government-produced/owned content (i.e., Crown Copyright) and privately-produced/owned (copyright is not held by the government). As stated above, this image falls into the first category and has thus been released under the Commons licence; ergo, it is suitable to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. (By the way, in future maybe post these all under the same header so we don't have to have the same conversation three separate times). Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- You are deliberately ignoring the part of the NAA creative commons page you link to which is clearly titled "Collection copyright" and states that items in the collection have different copyright statuses. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The NAA's website states in it's copyright notice for the website: "Please note there are additional terms to those provided by the Creative Commons licence that apply to use of the National Archives’ collection material." It goes on to refer readers to it's fact sheet in relation to "collection copyright" which the copyright page clearly treats differently to "website copyright".
- At best, the copyright notice is ambiguous in relation to "collection copyright". The better view, in my opinion, is that the image cannot be regarded as having been released under a CC licence as the copyright notice clearly separates "website" content from "collection" content, notwithstanding that the collection is accessible via the website.
- In relation to @Ivar the Boneful's comment regarding DFAT releasing their content under a CC licence, I'll point out that the DFAT copyright page only applies to content on the DFAT website; the image is taken from the NAA's website and clearly doesn't fall under the copyright licence on DFAT's website. Kb.au (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Re DFAT, I agree that the image isn't covered by Template:DFAT – if that were the case, things here would be a lot simpler. My point was that these Australian government agencies have a clear intent to issue material under CC licences; this isn't just some loophole that has been manufactured based on a single ambiguously worded paragraph, but rather a substantive policy present across multiple government departments (cf. Template:GGAU). It would be a perverse outcome if we decide to nitpick organisation's statements to find ways not to accept images that have prima facie been released under CC licences. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
