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 <liamwy...@gmail.com>

> 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 <blnguyen2...@gmail.com> 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

Reply via email to