User:SCHolar44/subpage3

I've split this into separate discussions since some may be resolved early and others continue.

1. Crown copyright

Inaugural comment:
This image is Crown Copyright ...
While the policy involves Crown copyright, it isn't necessary to mention it, because it's a background factor; the fundamental factor is the legislation that explicitly authorizes the expiry of copyright.

By Carl Lindberg: Keep the reference (and link) to Crown Copyright, since that is what it is named in the law, and what has a special term, and is the purpose for this template. Makes it easier to identify the sections of law which are relevant.

By SCHolar44: Could you expand on this please, Carl? Crown copyright only appears in the headings of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth); all text under those headings deal with the subject without using the words "Crown copyright". So the existence of any status of "Crown copyright" as a special term, I guess, is external to the Australian Copyright Act. Unfortunately I haven't participated in previous discussions as you have; could you give an indication of the nature and origin of Crown copyright as a special term?

2. Ownership

Inaugural comment:
... because it is owned by ...
Since the subject is material in which copyright has expired, this should be in the past tense.

By Carl: Fine with past tense, but note that a copyright transferred to the government is not Crown Copyright -- just ones created or first published by or under the direction of the government. This tag applies only to Crown Copyright.

By SCHolar44:
Just in case I'm misreading you: does your second sentence amount to "This tag applies only to work made by, or under the direction or control of, the Commonwealth or a State"?

3. Governments

Inaugural comment:
... or that of the states and territories ...
"That" is not identified, although the reader can infer that it means small-g government. For easier reading, I am proposing "... a government of an Australian state or territory".

By Carl: Seems like a good change.

4. Created or published (vs made)

Inaugural comment: ... it was created or published ...
The current legislation uses only the word "made"; we should reflect that.

By Carl: Previous laws had different terms based on creation or publication depending on the type of work (inherited from UK law); it seems as though the law has changed, so excellent. That needs an update (and mention on the talk page or documentation that the recent law has changed the term, in case there are old DRs or something which depended on the old terms, to make sense of older actions).

By SCHolar44: Actually the Copyright Act 1968, when first enacted (see 1973 reprint), had the same wording as the present version: see ss. 176 and 177. And although Australian courts will occasionally look at UK court judgements in their search for precedents, inheritance from UK law ceased many years ago.

5. Expiry

Inaugural comment: ... prior to 1971 ...
Although this is perfectly correct factually, it isn't the actual policy, which is "end of year made + 50 years".

By Carl: Nope, keep that -- existing template is better. The template is encoded as 2024-50 so it has the rule embedded, but we typically do that in templates (show the actual year of expiration) to make it easier to figure out. The template will auto-update the text each January 1.

By SCHolar44:

Sure, the rule is embedded, but to a reader who doesn't look into the code the rule appears to be "before 1973 ". The policy is 50+ years, but "before 1973" is the manifestation of the policy (for the time being). If people are disinclined to change, I suggest wording that encompasses both, such as:

Because at least 50 years have elapsed since the end of the calendar year in which it was made (i.e., on or before 31 December 1972), copyright has expired ...

6. Authority

Inaugural comment: ... and the copyright has therefore expired ...

This wording does not explain why, hence my proposal – as the core of the template's content – of:

copyright has expired under the provisions of section 180 of the Copyright Act 1968.

Linking makes it easily verifiable.

By Carl: Yes, good idea to link that. Good change.

7. Application worldwide

Inaugural comment:
The government of Australia has declared that the expiration of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide.

This can be deleted – other templates don't have equivalent text. (There are problems with this wording too, which in the interests of brevity I won't go into.)

By Carl: Omigosh no. That must be kept, and the OTRS/VRT number kept. We have had arguments about whether government work expirations apply worldwide or not, and we have gotten confirmation from only a few -- UK, Australia, Canada, maybe one or two others. People will often delete works if they fail URAA checks otherwise; that statement makes the URAA and U.S. copyright terms moot for Crown works, meaning this tag also satisfies the U.S. copyright status. {{PD-UKGov}} and {{PD-Canada-Crown}} most definitely link the corresponding documentation. In fact, linking that OTRS is mainly why this template was created, split out from {{PD-Australia}}. By From Hill To Shore: Point 7 is a problem. If the Australian government hasn't waived their international copyrights then we will need a separate template to address US copyright. See the note at the bottom of {{PD-old}} as an example By SCHolar44: Some clarification of terms is needed, I think, before I fully understand your reasoning on this. Here's my take:

The main problem is the ambiguity inherent in the words describing the copyright expiry of works made by governments as "applies worldwide ". The reply from Department of Communications and the Arts (VTRS ticket # 2017062010010417) concluded with: "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."

That can be taken two ways: 1. The Australian Government has put no limitations on the work being in the public domain worldwide and has authority to mandate that it will be in the public domain everywhere. 2. The Australian Government has put no limitations on the work being considered to be in the public domain worldwide; and whether it is actually in the public domain of any particular country depends on the policies of that country.

Looking to the PD-UKGov template, this ambiguity exists, as shown in the link "HMSO Email Reply":

Therefore, to use your example, material published in 1954, and any Crown copyright material published before that date, would now be out of copyright, and may be freely reproduced throughout the world.

The English Wikipedia content guideline acknowledges this situation here (their italics): " When Crown copyright expires on a work in its country of origin, the work enters the public domain in that country, but it may still be copyrighted in other signatory countries of the Berne Convention because these other countries apply their own laws, which may have longer copyright terms ...

In connection with another matter, a few months ago I asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, which now has responsibility for copyright, to

shed light on the intended implications of the earlier DCA advice that "… once the term of copyright protection expires in Australia, the domain is worldwide and not limited to Australia": does it in any way mandate public domain status in a foreign jurisdiction; or does it have no implications for foreign public domain status, simply being an expression of the fact that Australia does not impose any restrictions on a foreign jurisdiction's ability to allocate (or not allocate) public domain status in accordance with its own legislation?

The reply, from the Assistant Director Copyright, Trade and Government, was

I am not familiar with the statement: "The government of Australia has declared that the expiration of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide". Generally, countries have agreed to certain copyright durations in their international obligations and trade agreements. I am not aware of any declaration by the Australian Government that Crown copyright protection expires worldwide, and I am not sure how such a declaration could affect when copyright expires under the laws of another country.

The reference to "how such a declaration could affect when copyright expires under the laws of another country" (my italics) would place the meaning clearly under version 2 above.

8. Italics

Inaugural comment: An almost trivial point: this type of templates seems to be formatted equally often in italics or roman. Since the name of an Act is included, for ease of reading I would prefer to opt for roman so the Act is in italics rather than the other way around.

By Carl: No real opinion, fine with non-italics (other than the name of the law, etc.). Some of our tags do the italics thing, some don't.

==================

{{[[Template:PD-AustraliaGov/layout |PD-AustraliaGov/layout ]]}}