Commons:Deletion requests/Various PD-Australia after 1945

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Various PD-Australia after 1945|year=2024|month=December|day=23}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Various PD-Australia after 1945|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Various PD-Australia after 1945}} at the end of today's log.

Various PD-Australia after 1945

[edit]
1946
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
Unknown date but quite possibly post-1945

These images are all free in Australia, but they are not free in the US. Australia's law said photographs were in the public domain 50 years after creation. Thus, in order for these images to be free in the US, they had to be free in Australia on January 1, 1996 - which means the images must have been taken before 1946.

Like it or not, our policy currently dictates we are getting rid of files non-free in the US even if they are free in their home country: see Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review.

--Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep I know that this is a pointless comment, but these images are PD in Australia and there's no reason to think that anyone would ever seek to enforce their copyright outside Australia. I'm all for enforcing copyright - and do so aggressively in my role as an admin at En-Wiki - but pre-emptive copyright paranoia like this is not sensible. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Copyright paranoia," is simply a pejorative term for proactively ensuring content is free and not turning a blind eye to copyright violations. COM:PCP in fact prescribes such "paranoia." Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mean to be personally rude, but this really is pointless and unproductive. The images are PD in Australia and those owned by the AWM have been posted online on its website with the tag "Copyright expired - public domain". Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, we can safely assume that the owners of these images have no intention to enforce whatever copyright still exists in the US (the AWM actually hosted a Wikimedia conference a few years ago, so it seems safe to assume that they're aware that dozens of their post-1946 photos have been uploaded. Yet its relatively well-funded curatorial staff have raised no objections I'm aware of.). I acknowledge that Commons policy dictates that these images need to go, but it's pointless to apply it in situations like this. Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting point. If they do say "public domain" on their website, do we consider that public domain everywhere? The route we followed with British Crown works was to just ask them (see below); I think we maybe should do that here. Of course, such things can be worded intelligently for the best response - "is it OK if we mark these images as public domain on our servers here in the US?" Also, not all of these are AWM images - at least one of them appears to come from a professional agency (File:BernieSmith.jpg). But for all of these - including the non-AWM images - an OTRS ticket could validate their free status. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep: I agree with Nick on this. I've had a number of discussions about this with contributors arguing this point and none have yet explained to me how URAA is applicable to these images (especially the Australian War Memorial ones). In the case of the AWM, they are the donor, and they are specifically saying that anyone can use them by saying that they are "copyright expired - public domain" on their image pages (as per here: [1]). Can someone please explain how URAA applies to an image where the donor has expressed that anyone can use it? Is the US government going to fine people for breaching copyright? And if so, where will the fine money go? To the AWM? No, they are giving the image away. This is, IMO, a case of black letter law being bad law. It needs to be interpreted with common sense. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As this matter has the potential to affect hundreds, if not thousands of images, and will no doubt affect the morale of many Australian editors who will probably question their continued involvement here, is it possible for those arguing delete to take a step back and think about the strategic impact of nominating large numbers of files all at once for deletion? A better solution might have been a single test case and invite an official Wikimedia response (i.e. from someone employed as a copyright lawyer for the Wikimedia Foundation). So far, nobody has shown to me how they are more qualified than anyone elese to make this decision. Law is not black and white, despite being written as such; it is frequently found to be wrong or interpreted differently, so common sense should be applied, particularly in a case where the donor (for example the AWM) has no intention of enforcing copyright in the US. They want their images used in Wikipedia articles/placed on Commons; that is why they expressly changed their own licences a few years back to say "copyright expired - public domain". Deleting their images just demonstrates our own inflexibility. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "test case" would be here (although the testcase was for 3475 files instead of just one). However, the requested official Wikimedia response is available in that deletion request. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for the link. Unless, I've read it wrong, Wikimedia is urging a case-by-case approach, i.e. single image at a time. Mass deletions are problematic, IMO, and will only result in images being thrown out that may in fact be able to be kept. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • They were urging that all ~3000 items not be nuked on spot, because some of them may have been mistagged. They were definitely not stating that one cannot create a deletion request with ~50 items within because it would be a "mass-deletion." That interpretation is pedantic, and in fact would create all sorts of problems if it were implemented. I find it hard to believe that you don't see this. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Like it or not, they are free. This is nothing more than disruptive editing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That does nothing to address the point if they are free or not. Please make your argument based on law and policy, not ad hominems. w:WP:ATTP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? You didn't. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did. If I had said "They aren't free; Hawkeye7 is an idiot and a troll", that would have been an ad hominem. Instead, I gave all the reasons why the images are copyrighted in the US. And I gave a link showing that by policy, images falling under this criterion must be deleted. To which you've responded with nothing to back up your claims. So far, I've heard nothing but filibustering from you. I'm still waiting. So you can either choose to keep your fingers plugged in your ears (a tactic which will not work on the administrators here), or you can decide to play by our rules and make an argument based on policy or concede you are incorrect. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This law applies to Australia. It is Australian. Wikimedia should respect local national copyright policies. --09:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraHale (talk • contribs)
    Are you saying we should change our policy? If so, you might like to know that the Wikimedia Foundation disagrees with you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Furthermore, since the servers are located in the US, we must follow US law. For that matter, even if WMF relocates to another country, the Megaupload case shows that the US government is willing and able to enforce their laws internationally. The only way I see that we could respect local national copyright policies is if the US adopts the rule of the shorter term. Maybe it's time for a WikiPAC to start lobbying for US copyright reform. cmadler (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the Megaupload case, it seems that there were some Megaupload servers in the United States, and this seems to be why US laws could be enforced although the company's other operations were outside the United States. In the similar Pirate Bay case, courts have only cared about Swedish laws. As in the Megaupload case, Wikimedia has servers in multiple countries (the United States and the Netherlands). Maybe this means that any material hosted on a Wikimedia project has to comply with Dutch laws in addition to US ones, if you compare with the Megaupload case. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disregard community opinion and obey the law. These images are under copyright in the US, where the Wikimedia servers live. They must be deleted. Hesperian 11:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Many reasons, many of them stated above, and others as well. I fail to see why US law should constrain the world outside of US borders. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Sorry for the wall of text I'm about to produce, but I think it's necessary to explain the policy in place. Right at the top of COM:Licensing it says "Wikimedia Commons accepts only media... that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." (emphasis in original). These works are not in the public domain in the United States. I think the most useful way to think about it is thus: when the works were created they were copyright the world over. Because of the system in place in Australia, that copyright has now lapsed. However, it is for the United States to dictate copyright terms in the United States (or they can be formally released by the copyright holder – which I'll come back to). The United States has decided that only works that were in the public domain in their source country as of 1 January 1996 are in the public domain in the United States by right; other works have to meet United States standards of "70 years after the author's death, or for anonymous works or work made for hire, until the shorter of 95 years since the first publication or 120 years since the creation of the work". These 1945 works and later were not in the public domain on 1 January 1996 because government works in Australia come (through expiry) into the public domain fifty years after taking. These works are thus in clear contravention of Commons policy, which is required; the reason the US is important is that Wikimedia's servers are there.
Thus, instead of adopting the combatitive mood above, I recommend that those users wishing to use the files do one of two things:
  • Use them on each project under a fair-use licence, where applicable; or
  • Go down the British government route and seek a formal reply from the Australian Government or its agent placing the files in the public domain worldwide. (Example)
In response to AustralianRupert, unfortunately the Australian War Memorial cannot declare the images out of copyright as it almost certainly does not have the ability to do so. It (presumably) operates out of servers in Australia and need only concern itself with Australian copyright, where indeed these files are in the public domain.
Grandiose (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian government (which would otherwise own the copyright) has expired that copyright. That is the definition of being placed in "public domain" as you call it. If your argument were valid, everything that I have written will have to be taken down, because I do not have the right to licence it under creative commons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I wonder if he has a point. If the content was purposefully donated to the organization, the content creator might be OK with its distribution. And s/he may have given over the rights to AWM (I don't know nearly enough about that to even comment about the merits of such a thing). Unfortunately, the AWM lays a claim at the bottom of their page to the copyright on quite a bit of material, so they don't seem quite willing to just release their rights. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can comment though. Items are donated under various terms. In most cases, copyright on donated materials is indeed handed over to the government. Other items were government copyright in the first place. The War Memorial are neither willing nor able to give up their rights. These expire when the copyright expires. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Images must be free both in the United States and the country of origin per Commons policy. These images are not free in the United States. Simple as that. To those arguing keep: Either get the policy changed (though this may be a matter for the Foundation), or show why these images are free in the United States. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep at the very least all 1946-and-after images marked as "public domain" by the source, e.g. the Australian War Memorial. This has been hashed out before, for instance in a Commons deletion request here, and at a Featured Article review on the English Wikipedia here. Note the FAC discussion re. File:JK0736ECWackett1953.jpg and File:JK0744ECWackett1953.jpg, and Stifle's comment If the source website says something to the effect of "public domain" or "copyright released", I would take that as sufficient to tag the images {{PD-release}}. That's precisely what I've been doing with 1946-and-after images marked "public domain", without any issues being raised in the three years since; any image noted above marked PD by the source should remain. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If, and only if, the AWM has the ability to place the files in the public domain I certainly think there is some possibility that is what they have done. However, none of the files are correctly tagged for that possibility. I also think that this issue could be cleared up with an email to the AWM to ascertain that/if they consider themselves the copyright holder. Those files which aren't from AWM are still problematic, though. Grandiose (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The AWM is the copyright holder: it's one of Australia's main archives for military records, including the huge number of photos created by official government war photographers. The images on its database are part of its collection - please see the second and third sections of the copyright page on its website. Note also that the section on this page explaining the status of the images marked "Copyright Expired Public Domain" says "You do not need permission from the copyright owner to copy this image from the Memorial’s web site, or to reproduce it elsewhere", which seems pretty clear. In my experience the AWM is pretty good about marking the small number of images on its collection database which aren't part of its collection (most of these images seem to be of recent conflicts anyway - for instance, the AWM hosts some images taken by Australian photo journalists in Somalia and Cambodia during the early 1990s, and the records for these images states that copyright rests with the various photographers). Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete all for various reasons:
  1. Per Commons policy, free files need to be free in the United States. The mentioned website only provides the copyright status in Australia which doesn't have to be the same as the copyright status in the United States. In particular, Australian photos taken in 1946 or later are always copyrighted in the United States, unless explicitly released to the public domain by the copyright holder.
  2. "Copyright expired" implies that the copyright has expired because of age, not because the copyright holder has voluntarily released the images to the public domain. I would assume that the claim only applies to countries which have a copyright term of 50 years or less, or which apply the rule of the shorter term on Australian copyrights.
  3. Some photos don't seem to have any real source. At least one of the photos had a dead link, so it wasn't possible to find a year of creation at all. Such photos might be copyrighted in both Australia and the United States. Some of them might be pre-1946 photos, but without more information, we would have to delete them as improperly sourced.
  4. In many cases, there is no evidence of publication. The pre-1946 rule only applies to photos which were published before 1 March 1989 (and not even to all of them). If unpublished, Australian photos are copyrighted for either life+70 years or creation+120 years in the United States, depending on the photographer's employment terms. This also applies to pre-1946 photos. For this reason, we may also have to delete a number of pre-1946 photos.
Stefan4 (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rubbish. Any Australian photo, published or unpublished, anonymous or attributed, taken before 1 January 1955 is out of copyright and in the public domain The rule you are thinking of applies only to photographs for which the copyright had not expired by 2005. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the US, did the Supreme Court not rule on this in Golan v. Holder? Works that have fallen into the public domain after the expiration of a full copyright term, either in the United States or the country of origin, receive no further protection under §514. Ibid.12 Copyrights #restored$13 under URAA §514 #subsist for the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have otherwise been granted if the work never entered the public domain.$§104A(a)(1)(B). Prospectively, restoration places foreign works on an equal footing with their U. S. counterparts; assuming a foreign and domestic author died the same day, their works will enter the public domain simultaneously. See §302(a) (copyrights generally expire 70 years after the author"s death). Restored works, however, receive no compensatory time for the period of exclusivity they would have enjoyed before §514"s enactment, had they been protected at the outset in the United States. Their total term, therefore, falls short of that available to similarly situated U. S. works Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the United States Supreme Court ruled on this matter in Golan v. Holder, and the court's decision is the reason to the deletion request. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Edit conflict) Any photo (not just Australian photos), published or unpublished, anonymous or attributed, taken before 1 January 1955 is out of copyright in Australia and in the public domain in Australia. The copyright status in any other country may be different. For example, any Australian photos taken in 1946 or later are protected in the United States for life+70 years, creation+120 years or publication+95 years, depending on how and when it was published. For example, see case T 1421-07 (a United States utilitarian object was ruled to be copyrighted in Sweden, but utilitarian objects are in the public domain in the United States). --Stefan4 (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The court said that copyrights expire when they expire in Australia, because the copyright term was not extended, only the conditions of copyright. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately,  Delete -- we were allowing such images with the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag while the legal case over the URAA played out, but it was fully upheld. Thus, post-1945 photographs would have had their U.S. copyright restored. I would not delete any Crown Copyright works yet -- those may be in a different situation. Any chance those could be split out with a separate PD-AustraliaGov tag, instead of putting them all in PD-Australia? But the regular copyrights would have been restored, meaning the owners still hold those rights in the U.S., and those rights must be licensed to stay here. If there is an indication that the copyright owner has placed them into the public domain (a PD-author situation), that may be different, and we may need to create a specific tag for those. If someone wants to contact them and clarify if they also release their U.S. rights, that could help. Sounds like the Australian War Museum might fall into that, so maybe those bear further investigation. But anything else which is solely relying on Australian 50-year copyright expiration needs to go if they were created 1946 or later, as their U.S. copyright has been restored since 1996, and we need some other rationale for PD status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete all. Our servers are based in the US, and we are obligated to follow US law. These files are currently copyrighted under US law, so we can only keep them if the copyright owner has made a suitable release, which they do not appear to have done. Several people have argued that the statement at [2] that "You do not need permission from the copyright owner to copy this image from the Memorial’s web site, or to reproduce it elsewhere" constitutes such a release, but that ignores the section heading and two preceding sentences, which make it clear that they are referring, not to a release of rights, but to works for which the copyright has expired, presumably under Australian laws and any country that uses the rule of the shorter term. cmadler (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The servers are only hosted in the United States because WMF is in breach of a license to allow an image dump to be made. They are aware of this problem and continue to be in breach of license. Until Wikimedia fixes this, allows the image dumps of Common and complies with their license, Commons should be blacked out. The compelling case is not the USA but rather WMF's license breech. --20:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraHale (talk • contribs)
What are you talking about? What "license" is WMF in breach of? Also, from what I can tell you're arguing that if you can't have a few images on here, no one should get any images at all, which is a fantastic example of cutting off the nose to spite the face. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, except for the "unknown date" ones, which should be kept and further investigated to determine whether they are acceptable or not. I don't like it, the policy stinks, and it's copyright paranoia of the worst kind, but that's the policy dictated by the Foundation. Lankiveil (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Deleted: The reasons given in the nomination, and by those explaining why these photos must be deleted, are spot on the money, and the reasoning has been explained comprehensively. As much as Australian editors (myself included) want to save these files, the policy on Commons is that works need to be in the public domain in the country of origin and the United States to be hosted on Commons. This is to protect any reuser of content hosted here; whether they be in Australia, United States, or Inner Mongolia. Without a release under a free licence these photos will be undeleted until such time as they are out of copyright in the United States. russavia (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info
Any files listed here that were deleted and which are in the public domain in New Zealand have been reuploaded under their original filenames at Wikilivres, a New Zealand wiki unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation.
English | français | polski | slovenščina | +/−
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Various_PD-Australia_after_1945&oldid=87500454"