Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Crown Copyright in photographs

[Kerry Raymond]

>From a Commons process perspective, if I upload one of these photos which is 
>older than  “date plus 50 years” (which is currently 1966 and earlier photos 
>but next year become 1967 and earlier, etc), do I still use the 
>{{PD-Australia}} template? Or is there a different template?

 

My question links to the fact that the current PD-Australia template on Commons 
has not been updated since the legislation passed and currently says

 


Commonwealth or State government owned2 photographs and engravings:

taken or published more than 50 years ago and prior to 1 May 1969

 

Does this reflect the legislation and, if so, what is the bit about 1 May 1969 
all about? Or does the template need to be amended to reflect the legislation? 
Or should I be using some different template completely?

 

Kerry

 

From: Ross Mallett [mailto:hawke...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 June 2017 6:17 AM
To: kerry.raym...@gmail.com; Australian Wikimedians mailing list 

Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Crown Copyright in photographs

 

Kerry

Crown copyright includes the Federal and State governments, and those of all 
the territories, including the overseas territories. Even Norfolk Island.  It 
does NOT include local government.

Under the Constitution (Section 51 (xviii) to be exact), copyrights, trademarks 
and patents are a Federal responsibility, so only one law everywhere. 
(Hallelujah!)

Ross  

 

 

On 20/06/2017 6:05 PM, Kerry Raymond wrote:

And also mentioned on the Australian Wikipedians Noticeboard.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board

 

But I have a question (pardon my ignorance). Does Crown Copyright include the 
state governments and local governments or just the federal government?

 

Kerry

 

 

From: Wikimediaau-l [mailto:wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
Behalf Of Robert Myers
Sent: Tuesday, 20 June 2017 5:21 PM
To: 'Wikimedia-au' Chapter   

Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Crown Copyright in photographs

 

I think it would be best forwarded on to OTRS 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS

 

 

On 20 Jun 2017, at 5:17 PM, Pru Mitchell  > wrote:

 

Hi Ross

 

Thanks for pursuing this question and for sharing the response. It is very 
helpful in a number of contexts.

 

It begs the question as to where this communication could be stored so that 
those who need it can find it easily. 

Any ideas?

 

Thanks again, Pru

 

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Ross Mallett  > wrote:

I got a reply about my query as to the status of crown copyright photographs.

There was some concern about those that were not yet out of copyright on the US 
URAA date (ie 1 January 1996)

The UK government has declared that its crown copyright expire worldwide.  The 
Australian government has confirmed that this is the case here too.

Put simply, all crown copyright photographs in 1966 or earlier are in the 
public domain.

Ross







UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Dr Mallett,

 

Thank you for your letter of 17 March 2017 to Senator the Hon George Brandis 
QC, about copyright in photographs belonging to the Crown. Your letter has been 
forwarded to Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield, Minister for Communications and the 
Arts, as copyright law and policy falls within the portfolio responsibilities 
of Minister Fifield. I am responding on his behalf.

 

The Government has recently amended the provisions in the Copyright Act 1968 
relating to the term of protection for unpublished Crown photographs. The 
Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2017 passed in 
the Senate last week and will come into effect six months from the Bill 
receiving Royal Assent. 

 

The changes set out in the Copyright Amendment Bill provide a new term of 
protection for unpublished Crown copyright material. The amendments repealed 
sections 180 and 181 of the Copyright Act 1968 and inserted a new, consolidated 
section 180 that provides for a new standard term of protection for works, 
sound recordings and cinematograph films owned by the Crown of 50 years from 
the year in which the material is made (that is, ‘date made plus 50 years’), 
whether the material is made public or not. You can find the text to the Bill 
on the Australian Parliament House website: 
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5832

 

You also asked whether Australian Government copyright material would be in the 
public domain in the United States and I confirm that once the term of 
copyright protection expires in Australia, the domain is worldwide and not 
limited to Australia.

 

I trust this information will be of assistance and apologise for the delay in 
responding. 

 

Kind regards, 



 

Ruth Schofield

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Fair Use Campaign: Technical Update

[Leigh Blackall]

Thankyou for that detail. I'll study it and ensure I can use it as my own
response to similar such questions I get at work.
Regards,
Leigh

On 20 Jun 2017 18:47, "Liam Wyatt"  wrote:

> Hi Leigh,
>
> Here is our campaign website's specific page about education
> https://www.faircopyright.org.au/education/
> And this is the specific Fair Use myth busting content on the official
> copyright advisory website for Australian schools and TAFEs "smartcopying":
> http://www.smartcopying.edu.au/law-reform/fair-use
> THAT faircopying website is the the best/most detailed/official answer to
> any question on this issue :-)
>
> My own response: the introduction of Fair Use in Australia would NOT mean
> that schools stop paying for the copying of any/all copyrighted content -
> nor does the school sector wish to do that. Furthermore, "nor harming the
> commercial market for the copyrighted work" is one of the key tests of what
> counts as Fair Use. So - for example, kids getting textbooks, or the
> showing of copyrighted films in classrooms still would be royalty-creating
> activies through the process you describe. We see a lot of well-known
> Australian authors saying things like that they'll not get any money from
> schools using their books/plays/films but it's not true.
> What WOULD change is that things like the use of websites which are
> freely/publicly accessible (but still in copyright), the use of free-to-air
> broadcasts and the use of Orphan Works would change. These are the kinds of
> things that the general public does NOT pay for, but currently the schools
> sector DOES. No one is asking for money for these things, and the
> collecting agency gets to take a cut. In fact, because no one is following
> up on that money, the collecting agency has been able to funnel it into a
> lobbying fund: using the schools' own money to fight against changes which
> would allow schools to not have to spend money to use free-access (but
> in-copyright) websites http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-
> news/copyright-agency-diverts-funds-meant-for-authors-to-
> 15m-fighting-fund-20170420-gvol0w.html Personally I find this system, and
> that behaviour, utterly contemptible and morally bankrupt.
> Meanwhile, and relatedly, we know that the copyright industry is preparing
> a response to our campaign trying to say that it/we/me are somehow tainted
> with money from google. Straw man personal attacks seem likely to be the
> best they can muster as a counter argument...Meanwhile, the next stage is
> waiting to see how the Government formally responds to the Productivity
> Commission report, due "any time now".
>
> P.S. the banners are now no-longer showing on WP. The 'email your mp'
> fiction and FairCopyright website remain up though. At the moment we are
> 123 people short of a satisfactorily round "10,000" so, any late sign ups
> are welcome :-) https://www.faircopyright.org.au/take-action/
> p.p.s. My submission to wikimania on this campaign has been accepted, so
> we'll be producing some pretty graphs on the stats of pageviews/emails to
> MPs etc.
>
> -Liam
>
> Il giorno mar 20 giu 2017 alle 02:52 Leigh Blackall <
> leighblack...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>> Hi Liam, thanks for the detailed report.
>>
>> I have a question relating to the counter arguments you cite. Might this
>> lobby find better examples in the education and research space? Currently,
>> Australian schools and universities pay royalties for works copied through
>> Copyright Agency Limited (CAL), based on periodic audits where CAL comes to
>> a campus library, for example, and observes photocopying and other copy
>> methods to use as a data sample to configure a general payment rate for
>> that school or university for the next period (around 5 years).. how it is
>> precisely divided up into royalties to those it is owed I don't know,
>> dubious I'd expect. Needless to say, much of what is copied in the
>> education sector is educational content, like research, textbook chapters
>> etc. I know a few academics who claim royalty checks through CAL, for their
>> works that have been copied in a library somewhere. Might Fair Use impact
>> on this? So, not so much "artists" but producers of more
>> educational-in-nature content might lose their royalties from CAL if Fair
>> Use was introduced?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Leigh
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Aussiepedians again, also crossposting to the Public Policy group,
>>>
>>> TL;DR summary: Australia Fair Use campaign on Wikipedia will stop on
>>> Monday; Australians encouraged to send a letter to their MP (and bring our
>>> total over 10,000) here: https://www.faircopyright.org.
>>> au/take-action/#emailform
>>>
>>> As we reach the end of the #FairCopyrightOz campaign (banners on en.wp
>>> in Australia raising awareness of the Productivity Commission's
>>> recommendation to introduce Fair Use to Australia) I wanted to give 

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Fair Use Campaign: Technical Update

[Liam Wyatt]

Hi Leigh,

Here is our campaign website's specific page about education
https://www.faircopyright.org.au/education/
And this is the specific Fair Use myth busting content on the official
copyright advisory website for Australian schools and TAFEs "smartcopying":
http://www.smartcopying.edu.au/law-reform/fair-use
THAT faircopying website is the the best/most detailed/official answer to
any question on this issue :-)

My own response: the introduction of Fair Use in Australia would NOT mean
that schools stop paying for the copying of any/all copyrighted content -
nor does the school sector wish to do that. Furthermore, "nor harming the
commercial market for the copyrighted work" is one of the key tests of what
counts as Fair Use. So - for example, kids getting textbooks, or the
showing of copyrighted films in classrooms still would be royalty-creating
activies through the process you describe. We see a lot of well-known
Australian authors saying things like that they'll not get any money from
schools using their books/plays/films but it's not true.
What WOULD change is that things like the use of websites which are
freely/publicly accessible (but still in copyright), the use of free-to-air
broadcasts and the use of Orphan Works would change. These are the kinds of
things that the general public does NOT pay for, but currently the schools
sector DOES. No one is asking for money for these things, and the
collecting agency gets to take a cut. In fact, because no one is following
up on that money, the collecting agency has been able to funnel it into a
lobbying fund: using the schools' own money to fight against changes which
would allow schools to not have to spend money to use free-access (but
in-copyright) websites
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/copyright-agency-diverts-funds-meant-for-authors-to-15m-fighting-fund-20170420-gvol0w.html
Personally I find this system, and that behaviour, utterly contemptible and
morally bankrupt.
Meanwhile, and relatedly, we know that the copyright industry is preparing
a response to our campaign trying to say that it/we/me are somehow tainted
with money from google. Straw man personal attacks seem likely to be the
best they can muster as a counter argument...Meanwhile, the next stage is
waiting to see how the Government formally responds to the Productivity
Commission report, due "any time now".

P.S. the banners are now no-longer showing on WP. The 'email your mp'
fiction and FairCopyright website remain up though. At the moment we are
123 people short of a satisfactorily round "10,000" so, any late sign ups
are welcome :-) https://www.faircopyright.org.au/take-action/
p.p.s. My submission to wikimania on this campaign has been accepted, so
we'll be producing some pretty graphs on the stats of pageviews/emails to
MPs etc.

-Liam

Il giorno mar 20 giu 2017 alle 02:52 Leigh Blackall 
ha scritto:

> Hi Liam, thanks for the detailed report.
>
> I have a question relating to the counter arguments you cite. Might this
> lobby find better examples in the education and research space? Currently,
> Australian schools and universities pay royalties for works copied through
> Copyright Agency Limited (CAL), based on periodic audits where CAL comes to
> a campus library, for example, and observes photocopying and other copy
> methods to use as a data sample to configure a general payment rate for
> that school or university for the next period (around 5 years).. how it is
> precisely divided up into royalties to those it is owed I don't know,
> dubious I'd expect. Needless to say, much of what is copied in the
> education sector is educational content, like research, textbook chapters
> etc. I know a few academics who claim royalty checks through CAL, for their
> works that have been copied in a library somewhere. Might Fair Use impact
> on this? So, not so much "artists" but producers of more
> educational-in-nature content might lose their royalties from CAL if Fair
> Use was introduced?
>
> Regards,
> Leigh
>
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
>
>> Hi Aussiepedians again, also crossposting to the Public Policy group,
>>
>> TL;DR summary: Australia Fair Use campaign on Wikipedia will stop on
>> Monday; Australians encouraged to send a letter to their MP (and bring our
>> total over 10,000) here:
>> https://www.faircopyright.org.au/take-action/#emailform
>>
>> As we reach the end of the #FairCopyrightOz campaign (banners on en.wp in
>> Australia raising awareness of the Productivity Commission's recommendation
>> to introduce Fair Use to Australia) I wanted to give an update and request:
>>
>> - Thanks to the diligent A/B-testing work of Seddon at the WMF, the total
>> clickthrough rate of the banners has remained steady, even while the actual
>> visibility of them has been decreased. They started at standard banner-size
>> visible at 50% on day 1, then steadily decreasing to 12% with smaller
>> 

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Crown Copyright in photographs

[Robert Myers]

I think it would be best forwarded on to OTRS 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS 



> On 20 Jun 2017, at 5:17 PM, Pru Mitchell  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ross
> 
> Thanks for pursuing this question and for sharing the response. It is very 
> helpful in a number of contexts.
> 
> It begs the question as to where this communication could be stored so that 
> those who need it can find it easily. 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Thanks again, Pru
> 
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Ross Mallett  > wrote:
> I got a reply about my query as to the status of crown copyright photographs.
> 
> There was some concern about those that were not yet out of copyright on the 
> US URAA date (ie 1 January 1996)
> The UK government has declared that its crown copyright expire worldwide.  
> The Australian government has confirmed that this is the case here too.
> Put simply, all crown copyright photographs in 1966 or earlier are in the 
> public domain.
> 
> Ross
> 
> 
> 
> UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> Dear Dr Mallett,
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you for your letter of 17 March 2017 to Senator the Hon George Brandis 
> QC, about copyright in photographs belonging to the Crown. Your letter has 
> been forwarded to Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield, Minister for Communications 
> and the Arts, as copyright law and policy falls within the portfolio 
> responsibilities of Minister Fifield. I am responding on his behalf.
> 
>  
> 
> The Government has recently amended the provisions in the Copyright Act 1968 
> relating to the term of protection for unpublished Crown photographs. The 
> Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2017 passed 
> in the Senate last week and will come into effect six months from the Bill 
> receiving Royal Assent.
> 
>  
> 
> The changes set out in the Copyright Amendment Bill provide a new term of 
> protection for unpublished Crown copyright material. The amendments repealed 
> sections 180 and 181 of the Copyright Act 1968 and inserted a new, 
> consolidated section 180 that provides for a new standard term of protection 
> for works, sound recordings and cinematograph films owned by the Crown of 50 
> years from the year in which the material is made (that is, ‘date made plus 
> 50 years’), whether the material is made public or not. You can find the text 
> to the Bill on the Australian Parliament House website: 
> http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5832
>  
> 
>  
> 
> You also asked whether Australian Government copyright material would be in 
> the public domain in the United States and I confirm that once the term of 
> copyright protection expires in Australia, the domain is worldwide and not 
> limited to Australia.
> 
>  
> 
> I trust this information will be of assistance and apologise for the delay in 
> responding.
> 
>  
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Ruth Schofield
> 
> A/g Assistant Director  / Content and Copyright Branch / Content Division
> 
> Department of Communications and the Arts
> 
>  
> 
> 38 Sydney Avenue, Forrest ACT 2603
> 
> GPO Box 2154 Canberra ACT 2601
> 
>  
> 
> –
> 
>  
> 
> communications.gov.au 
>  @CommsAu 
>  
> 
> arts.gov.au 
>  @artsculturegov 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com 
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Pru Mitchell
> Vice-President Wikimedia Australia
> pru.mitch...@wikimedia.org.au 
> http://wikimedia.org.au 
> 
> Wikimedia Australia Inc. is an independent charitable organisation which 
> supports the efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation in Australia. Your donations 
> keep the Wikimedia mission alive.
> http://wikimedia.org.au/Donate 
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Crown Copyright in photographs

[Pru Mitchell]

Hi Ross

Thanks for pursuing this question and for sharing the response. It is very
helpful in a number of contexts.

It begs the question as to where this communication could be stored so that
those who need it can find it easily.
Any ideas?

Thanks again, Pru

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Ross Mallett  wrote:

> I got a reply about my query as to the status of crown copyright
> photographs.
>
> There was some concern about those that were not yet out of copyright on
> the US URAA date (ie 1 January 1996)
>
> The UK government has declared that its crown copyright expire worldwide.
> The Australian government has confirmed that this is the case here too.
> Put simply, all crown copyright photographs in 1966 or earlier are in the
> public domain.
>
> Ross
>
>
>
> UNCLASSIFIED
>
> Dear Dr Mallett,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your letter of 17 March 2017 to Senator the Hon George
> Brandis QC, about copyright in photographs belonging to the Crown. Your
> letter has been forwarded to Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield,
> Minister for Communications and the Arts, as copyright law and policy
> falls within the portfolio responsibilities of Minister Fifield. I am
> responding on his behalf.
>
>
>
> The Government has recently amended the provisions in the *Copyright Act
> 1968* relating to the term of protection for unpublished Crown
> photographs. The Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures)
> Bill 2017 passed in the Senate last week and will come into effect six
> months from the Bill receiving Royal Assent.
>
>
>
> The changes set out in the Copyright Amendment Bill provide a new term of
> protection for unpublished Crown copyright material. The amendments
> repealed sections 180 and 181 of the Copyright Act 1968 and inserted a new,
> consolidated section 180 that provides for a new standard term of
> protection for works, sound recordings and cinematograph films owned by the
> Crown of 50 years from the year in which the material is made (that is,
> ‘date made plus 50 years’), whether the material is made public or not. You
> can find the text to the Bill on the Australian Parliament House website:
> http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_
> Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5832
>
>
>
> You also asked whether Australian Government copyright material would be
> in the public domain in the United States and I confirm that once the term
> of copyright protection expires in Australia, the domain is worldwide and
> not limited to Australia.
>
>
>
> I trust this information will be of assistance and apologise for the delay
> in responding.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> [image: cid:C4234CC5-D32A-44FF-A754-F96227B373F7]
>
>
>
> *Ruth Schofield*
>
> A/g Assistant Director  */* Content and Copyright Branch* / *Content
> Division
>
> Department of Communications and the Arts
>
>
>
> 38 Sydney Avenue, Forrest ACT 2603
>
> GPO Box 2154 Canberra ACT 2601
>
>
>
> *–*
>
>
>
> communications.gov.au 
>
> [image: cid:17F0759F-5B67-41BB-B991-66700A2CA00A] @CommsAu
> 
>
>
>
> arts.gov.au
>
> [image: cid:17F0759F-5B67-41BB-B991-66700A2CA00A] @artsculturegov
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> [image: Avast logo]
> 
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
> 
>
>
> ___
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
>


-- 

Pru Mitchell
Vice-President Wikimedia Australia
pru.mitch...@wikimedia.org.au
http://wikimedia.org.au

Wikimedia Australia Inc. is an independent charitable organisation which
supports the efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation in Australia. Your
donations keep the Wikimedia mission alive.
*http://wikimedia.org.au/Donate *
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

[Wikimediaau-l] Crown Copyright in photographs

[Ross Mallett]

I got a reply about my query as to the status of crown copyright 
photographs.


There was some concern about those that were not yet out of copyright on 
the US URAA date (ie 1 January 1996)


The UK government has declared that its crown copyright expire 
worldwide.  The Australian government has confirmed that this is the 
case here too.


Put simply, all crown copyright photographs in 1966 or earlier are in 
the public domain.


Ross



UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Dr Mallett,

**

Thank you for your letter of 17 March 2017 to Senator the Hon George 
Brandis QC, about copyright in photographs belonging to the Crown. Your 
letter has been forwarded to Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield, 
Minister for Communications and the Arts, as copyright law and policy 
falls within the portfolio responsibilities of Minister Fifield. I am 
responding on**his**behalf.


The Government has recently amended the provisions in the /Copyright Act 
1968/ relating to the term of protection for unpublished Crown 
photographs. The Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other 
Measures) Bill 2017 passed in the Senate last week and will come into 
effect six months from the Bill receiving Royal Assent.


The changes set out in the Copyright Amendment Bill provide a new term 
of protection for unpublished Crown copyright material. The amendments 
repealed sections 180 and 181 of the Copyright Act 1968 and inserted a 
new, consolidated section 180 that provides for a new standard term of 
protection for works, sound recordings and cinematograph films owned by 
the Crown of 50 years from the year in which the material is made (that 
is, ‘date made plus 50 years’), whether the material is made public or 
not. You can find the text to the Bill on the Australian Parliament 
House website: 
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5832


You also asked whether Australian Government copyright material would be 
in the public domain in the United States and I confirm that once the 
term of copyright protection expires in Australia, the domain is 
worldwide and not limited to Australia.


I trust this information will be of assistance and apologise for the 
delay in responding.


Kind regards,

cid:C4234CC5-D32A-44FF-A754-F96227B373F7

*Ruth Schofield*

A/g Assistant Director */* Content and Copyright Branch*/ *Content Division

Department of Communications and the Arts

38 Sydney Avenue, Forrest ACT 2603

GPO Box 2154 Canberra ACT 2601

*–*

communications.gov.au 

cid:17F0759F-5B67-41BB-B991-66700A2CA00A@CommsAu 



arts.gov.au 

cid:17F0759F-5B67-41BB-B991-66700A2CA00A@artsculturegov 






---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l