Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Frank hurley on Endurance.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.
This was neither made nor published (as far as we know) in Australia.
According to http://www.nla.gov.au/pict/pic_copyright.html , the Australian copyright term does not apply to works which were neither made nor published in Australia. So I think that it is a bit difficult to say that {{PD-Australia}} applies. Teofilo (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete Frank Hurley died 1962.
- I am not so sure about what I said any longer. Actually the Australian law says that when someone leaves his country only for a short time, he should still be considered a resident of that country. So the country of origin of this picture is that of the creator of the picture, and one can assume that he chose the angle of the camera himself and asked somebody else merely to press the shutter. So perhaps the picture could be considered as "made in Australia" because it was made by an Australian during a short stay abroad. In connection with the US law, however, the work qualifies either as unpublished or published on the internet only since a few years ago, and therefore it is protected by the US copyright law. This is perhaps another item of works PD in their country of origin, yet protected in the USA. Teofilo (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- And I am no longer sure if it makes any difference if a picture was taken abroad or not if it was taken before 1955. But there is still a copyright problem in the USA. Teofilo (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am not so sure about what I said any longer. Actually the Australian law says that when someone leaves his country only for a short time, he should still be considered a resident of that country. So the country of origin of this picture is that of the creator of the picture, and one can assume that he chose the angle of the camera himself and asked somebody else merely to press the shutter. So perhaps the picture could be considered as "made in Australia" because it was made by an Australian during a short stay abroad. In connection with the US law, however, the work qualifies either as unpublished or published on the internet only since a few years ago, and therefore it is protected by the US copyright law. This is perhaps another item of works PD in their country of origin, yet protected in the USA. Teofilo (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep 1915 image by an Australian, first publication assumed to be in Australia. License is correct. -Nard the Bard 00:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)- Keep Per Nard the Bard. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Nard the Bard also US law can only apply within US controlled countries. Parts of the Antartic is also controlled by Australia. Bidgee (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- The US law applies to works made by non-US citizens as written in http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ (see "Never Published, Never Registered Works" and "Works Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad"). An unpublished work made by an Australian national can also become a work first published in the USA if its copyright owner decides to do so. Teofilo (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Read what you just said "An unpublished work made by an Australian national can also become a work first published in the USA if its copyright owner decides to do so." The works in question is published in Australia and not the US and the copyright owner is the one who decides not the US law. Bidgee (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes he is the one who decides. That is why he says on the bottom of this page : If you wish to use it for any other purposes, you must complete the Request for permission form. "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication." US copyright law. Merely saying "You may save or print this image for research and study" does not constitute a distribution for purposes of further distribution. So I am afraid it is not a publication. Teofilo (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Read what you just said "An unpublished work made by an Australian national can also become a work first published in the USA if its copyright owner decides to do so." The works in question is published in Australia and not the US and the copyright owner is the one who decides not the US law. Bidgee (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- The US law applies to works made by non-US citizens as written in http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ (see "Never Published, Never Registered Works" and "Works Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad"). An unpublished work made by an Australian national can also become a work first published in the USA if its copyright owner decides to do so. Teofilo (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - no doubt in my mind that {{PD-Australia}} applies --Matilda (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- It applies so that you can use the picture in Australia, but this does not make the picture free for use in the United States. Teofilo (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- The image is from 1915. Tell us which section of American law would protect it. -Nard the Bard 13:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- If posting on the internet is a publication : "Unpublished works created before 1978 that were published after 2002 = Life of the author + 70 years" ; If posting on the internet is not a publication : "Unpublished works = Life of the author + 70 years" : http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ Teofilo (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop trying to force US laws which do not apply in Australia and it's citizens. Bidgee (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is a technical solution to discrepancies of copyright laws in different countries. Teofilo (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- That is not a technical solution. This image is in the Australian PD therefore the only issue is you trying to force US law on to a photograph taken by Australian and possible in an Australian Territory (Part of Antarctica is part of Australia). Bidgee (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is a technical solution to discrepancies of copyright laws in different countries. Teofilo (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop trying to force US laws which do not apply in Australia and it's citizens. Bidgee (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- If posting on the internet is a publication : "Unpublished works created before 1978 that were published after 2002 = Life of the author + 70 years" ; If posting on the internet is not a publication : "Unpublished works = Life of the author + 70 years" : http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ Teofilo (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- The image is from 1915. Tell us which section of American law would protect it. -Nard the Bard 13:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- It applies so that you can use the picture in Australia, but this does not make the picture free for use in the United States. Teofilo (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept per consensus that {{PD-Australia}} applies to this image. WJBscribe (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
