Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Pd-Australia
Under the FTA copyright in the US is extinguished if the copyright in the originating country was already extinguished at the time of FTA being implimented 2009/2/11 Stephen Bain > 2009/2/10 Liam Wyatt : > > > > According to the reading by the Copyright Council of Australia (who are > the > > most conservative in these matters) the rules are that the image is PD if > > the photographer *died* before 1955 - not whether the photograph was > > *published* before 1955. So, in the case of Anon photographers this gets > > even trickier. > > http://www.copyright.org.au/information/introduction/intro-5.htm > > Photos are a special case. Prior to the FTA changes, the rule was 50 > years after the photo was *taken*. Any photo taken in Australia before > 1 Jan 1955 is in the public domain in Australia. > > After the FTA changes, the rule became life of the author plus 70, > just like for other types of works. This applies to any photo taken > after 1 Jan 2005, or any photo still in copyright as at 1 Jan 2005. > > That's only Australian copyright though, things can be under copyright > still in the US even if they are out of copyright elsewhere, thanks to > stupid American copyright law. > > -- > Stephen Bain > stephen.b...@gmail.com > > ___ > Wikimediaau-l mailing list > Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l > -- GN. http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/ ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Pd-Australia
2009/2/10 Liam Wyatt : > > According to the reading by the Copyright Council of Australia (who are the > most conservative in these matters) the rules are that the image is PD if > the photographer *died* before 1955 - not whether the photograph was > *published* before 1955. So, in the case of Anon photographers this gets > even trickier. > http://www.copyright.org.au/information/introduction/intro-5.htm Photos are a special case. Prior to the FTA changes, the rule was 50 years after the photo was *taken*. Any photo taken in Australia before 1 Jan 1955 is in the public domain in Australia. After the FTA changes, the rule became life of the author plus 70, just like for other types of works. This applies to any photo taken after 1 Jan 2005, or any photo still in copyright as at 1 Jan 2005. That's only Australian copyright though, things can be under copyright still in the US even if they are out of copyright elsewhere, thanks to stupid American copyright law. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Pd-Australia
The duration of copyright in photographs was significantly extended as a result of implementing Australia's obligations under the AUSFTA. This made protection for photographs consistent with protection for other types of artistic works. For photographs in which copyrights still subsisted on 1 January 2005, or which are created on or after that date, copyright lasts until 70 years from the end of the year in which the photographer died. Prior to this phototgraphs were PD after 50 years they were taken not after the death of the photographer, Painting etc have always been after the artists death, there was a window of opportunity to copyrighted works in other countries that werent covered by US copyright that the owner could register the work in the US and get copyright reinstate in the US though it *did not & could not *be applied if copyright had been extinguished in the originating country, the target group of works for this was some cinamatic and all music where copyright in the US was 20-25 years for foreign works, though it could have been applied to photographs I havent seen any images that have been registered.. It is common practise for Australian institutions to claim copyright on PD images where they dont actually have that right but they can reasonable expect a fee for providing high quality large format copies for reuse so I presume they use the copyright claim as the way of ensuring they get the fee. The image is already used in the FA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Bradman and was on the main page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/August_27,_2008I'd say theres very little doubt given the scrutiny and usage that the image has already had in the last 6 months that its PD 2009/2/10 Liam Wyatt > Oh I hate this stuff > > According to the reading by the Copyright Council of Australia (who are the > most conservative in these matters) the rules are that the image is PD if > the photographer *died* before 1955 - not whether the photograph was > *published* before 1955. So, in the case of Anon photographers this gets > even trickier. > http://www.copyright.org.au/information/introduction/intro-5.htm > > I don't know if we want to take their advice, but on that reading it is > *likely* that a 1946 photographer probably lived 'till 1955 and therefore > the image is *likely* still copyrighted. However, this is NOT the practice > on WP to-date and it is not an uncontested reading. > > -Liam > > On 2/10/09, YellowMonkey wrote: > >> Can anyone who understands PD-Australia look at >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Donald_Bradman_with_the_Australian_cricket_team_in_England_in_1948 >> >> please >> >> The 1955 rule seems to being challenged again >> >> ___ >> Wikimediaau-l mailing list >> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l >> >> > > > -- > Email - liamwy...@gmail.com > Phone - +61 (0)434 056 914 > Skype - Wittylama > Wikipedia - [[User:Witty lama]] > ___ > Wikimediaau-l mailing list > Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l > > -- GN. http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/ ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Pd-Australia
Oh I hate this stuff According to the reading by the Copyright Council of Australia (who are the most conservative in these matters) the rules are that the image is PD if the photographer *died* before 1955 - not whether the photograph was *published* before 1955. So, in the case of Anon photographers this gets even trickier. http://www.copyright.org.au/information/introduction/intro-5.htm I don't know if we want to take their advice, but on that reading it is *likely* that a 1946 photographer probably lived 'till 1955 and therefore the image is *likely* still copyrighted. However, this is NOT the practice on WP to-date and it is not an uncontested reading. -Liam On 2/10/09, YellowMonkey wrote: > > Can anyone who understands PD-Australia look at > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Donald_Bradman_with_the_Australian_cricket_team_in_England_in_1948 > > please > > The 1955 rule seems to being challenged again > > ___ > Wikimediaau-l mailing list > Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l > > -- Email - liamwy...@gmail.com Phone - +61 (0)434 056 914 Skype - Wittylama Wikipedia - [[User:Witty lama]] ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
