The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jolibee branch 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Found at higher resolution, uploaded here in 2011. Diannaa (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep per Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burlington Skyway 1958.png. The things are now in development, there was a recent statement from the legal, and if at the end of the day it is decided that the Crown copyright files are to be deleted, we can always delete them--Ymblanter (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:101 construction between Chapleau and Foleyet, 1961.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:417 Alta Vista overpass 1961.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:21 Redirection near Goderich.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:27 widening and Toronto Bypass construction, 1954.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:401 pre-widening at Keele, March 21, 1958.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:417 west from Carling.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:48 and 401 cloverleaf.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:71 Sioux Narrows, 1951.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:73 at Copenhagen.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:7A - CausewayAerial60.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unfree in USA, see ((Not-PD-US-URAA)). Stefan2 (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - terms of copyright specified by the creator state that the copyright expires 50 years after creation. No legal opinion has been offered to verify that the URAA overrides the terms set by the creator. Tag with FUR if necessary. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator has only set the terms in the source country. Those terms do not necessarily apply to other countries. No evidence has been provided that those terms apply outside the source country. See for example Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Ontario highway images. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Do not necessarily" - based on what? So if I take a photo, and claim that it is copyright, it is copyright everywhere... but if I say the copyright expires after 50 years, that only applies in my country? No, sorry, that makes absolutely ZERO sense. The copyright holder has set the terms for the works it creates. These terms apply in every country signed under Berne. Unless you can find me a statement that counters this, the copyright terms set by the creator apply just like any other copyright term set by the creator - for as long as they are set by the creator. Find me case law in the States where a copyright renewed by URAA was A) since made PD in its country of creation by crown copyright terms, and B) the copyright renewal under URAA upheld even though the work was PD in its source country. I am voting keep, as this is an over-application of the precautionary principle. We may as well not have an encyclopedia, because someone might sue us for something as obscure as this. No evidence has been provided at the previous discussion, just opinions. I have a legal document that says works created by the crown are copyright until the end of the calendar year, 50 years after publication. I see nothing there that says "the copyright in Canada expires", nor do I see anything that says "crown copyright only applies in Canada". Ergo, Crown Copyright applies just like every other form of copyright. The picture I drew of a dinosaur in 1994 is copyright. If I say "It's public domain", that can not, will not, is not superceded by the URAA. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Canadian government has written a law which states that the copyright expires 50 years after publication. Courts outside Canada do not use Canadian laws but the laws of the country where the court is located. Therefore, looking only at the Canadian copyright law is insufficient for determining the copyright status outside Canada, as Canada only has dictated the copyright terms which apply within Canada. In most countries, the copyright holder is unable to have any influence on the copyright term of its works.

The Berne Convention does not forbid copyright protection in any situation. The Berne Convention only lists a certain situations in which copyright protection is mandatory. Any country is free to provide copyright protection in any other situation if it so wishes. One such country is the United States, which does not use the rule of the shorter term. See for example the case Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc. where a US court granted copyright protection for toys from Japan, although Japanese courts consider toys to be utilitarian and therefore do not grant any copyright protection for them at all. If you think that government works are treated differently to other works, then you would have to find a source for that claim. Pages such as this (image caption: "© House of Commons 1957") seem to contradict your idea that the copyright has expired in all countries in the entire world. If the copyright had expired in the entire world in 2008, then there would not have been any need for that copyright notice.

Finally, note that some of the photos above do not even contain evidence that the copyright has expired in Canada. The photos were all taken more than 50 years ago, but the copyright expires 50 years after publication. In some cases, there is insufficient information to determine when the photos were first published. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you're basically saying is that the Canadian government has no power over the copyright status of their work outside of Canada? I call BS on this and would like evidence and not here-say, as this affects a large number of images (hundreds, if not thousands) - The copyright holder of a work has the absolute right to determine the copyright status of their work! If this weren't the case, I couldn't upload photos I took, because the US would automatically apply copyright above and beyond my creative commons release, which would only apply in Canada. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Commons may have different copyright terms from crown works. The portrait in question may be taken by an MP, and therefore not subject to Crown copyright. The website maintainers may just stick copyright notices ignorantly, as a number of archives do; copyfraud. Either way, the example you've provided is apples and oranges to these photographs. Your Hasbro example is also far off, as it was something with no copyright protection in the country of creation. Find me a case where Hasbro has a copyright information page stating "Our toys are copyright for 50 years after creation, at which point they are public domain," and only then will you be comparing the same concept.

Until recently I did not post the page number of the annual report that the photos were taken from, but that is how I determine the date of the photos as well. I can add these if need be, but there is a lot to go through.

Regardless, I have fired an email to the head of intellectual property rights in Canada asking if the terms of crown copyright apply worldwide. If they do, I will be filing it with OTRS, and no editor opinion will be able to counter the fact that crown images from 1946 to 1962 are public domain. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get a statement to OTRS, then that would be very valuable for lots of images. However, I don't see why Canadian law would be any different to US law. Compare the following statements:

• Canadian law defines the rules for Canadian government works. Canadian laws only apply in Canada, so other rules may apply in other countries.
• US law defines the rules for US government works. US laws only apply in the US, so other rules may apply in other countries.

No difference, is there? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but that is explicitly stated in US law; the Canadian law doesn't state that it only applies crown copyright within Canada. Also, can you safely say that those aren't meant as blanket statements that basically confer "Canadian copyright law applies to Canada. You can't apply it to things in Norway," rather than as stating "The copyright terms we apply to our own creations mean squat outside of Canada."

There is a big difference between "Canadian law is our rules, and may be different from rules elsewhere" versus "The law we passed setting explicit copyright terms on the materials we create is inapplicable outside of Canada; the expiration of copyright applies only in Canada. Outside of Canada, the material will be treated as if no copyright terms were set."

So again I must ask: Do I, as a Canadian on Canadian soil, only have the right to dictate the terms of copyright on my own works within Canada? Does this not mean that only Americans can upload their own works, since users from other countries have no say in the US, and therefore their works are subjected to a default life of author+ copyright? This flies in the face of international law. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but there are lots of cases where courts have found that copyright laws of another country are null and void outside that country. See for example this case where a French court concludes that US rules for determining the copyright holder are null and void in France and that US works may have different copyright holders in France.

If you add, say, ((cc-zero)) to an image, no country is required to respect this. In fact, there are plenty of cases where countries prohibit you from relinquishing some of your rights. See for example § 45 a in the Swedish copyright act: "Contractual terms which limit the artist's rights with regard to this section are invalid" (Ett avtalsvillkor som inskränker konstnärens rätt enligt denna paragraf är ogiltigt.) The main problem here is that there is no evidence that the Canadian government has extended its copyright term to places outside Canada in the first place. If you license a work, it is perfectly possible to write that the work may be used in one country but not in some other country. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's France and Sveden though. The whole issue at hand is because of the unfortunate setup of US law; in my opinion its a far reach of the precautionary principle. In the end though, I guess we must resolve to see what the officials say. Because it's our Thanksgiving weekend, I won't receive any response until Tuesday at the minimum, so I kindly ask that these aren't closed before then to save the trouble of getting them restored. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the Swedish law is likely to protect musical acts from relinquishing rights to their works through a contract. It doesn't say that a creator cannot choose to release the work without copyright. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an update, I didn't receive a response this week. Government speed. Floydian ^τ _¢ 07:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The response I got was much the same, although I've asked for clarification on a number of statements. For some reason we have an office that handles copyrights in Canada but has no authority (only the politicians do, and I'm oh so certain they will do just as they do for any other decision: sit on it, accomplish nothing, but act like they did). Anyways, this in particular was a statement that may clarify (although, like the politicians, I believe the copyright police on Wikipedia have a hyperactive pituitary and won't derive anything from this):

"Our conclusion is that Canada’s membership in the WTO has not occasioned a reset of the clock that ticks for 50 years until expiry of the copyright in its photos."

• Now I believe that is there position on their copyright, wherever in the world it may be. Some may try to argue that "Well that's only in Canada", but until they can produce something to provide proof to their argument (ie email from them or the US government stating that this isn't the case), I am concluding that crown copyright is explicit and the terms set in Canada are the terms applied to it worldwide. The copyright doesn't just expire after 50 years, it is explicitly removed after 50 years. No policy in the US can supersede the terms set by the copyright holder. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless there is a response of some kind in the next 7–14 days, I think an admin can safely close this as keep, and the appropriate additions made to ((PD-Canada)) to reference this discussion. If you start your advent calendar today (Sunday the 8th): On the 24th day, any work published under crown copyright prior to or on December 31, 1963, is Public Domain worldwide. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 09:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To all interested parties, please see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burlington Skyway 1958.png. Whatever result that produces can be applied here. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 19:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Basic application of Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. All the works listed above are presented as works of the Government of Ontario published after 1945. As such, they were under copyright in their source country on January 1, 1996 and thus in the United States they are subject to a 95-year copyright, per the URAA-related provisions of the U.S. Copyright Act. The earliest year in which they will begin to enter public domain in the U.S. is 2042, for works published in 1946. No evidence, or even claim, has been provided to the effect that the Government of Ontario might have issued any form of statement releasing the copyrights it owns on those works in the U.S. or elsewhere. The Government of Ontario may or may not be willing to issue a statement of renunciation to its worldwide copyrights on one or several of those photographs, if a request is made (Commons:Commons:Email templates), but there is no evidence in the above discussion that any contact has been made with the Government of Ontario to request such release. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence is needed. The author has a set term of copyright, after which the works become public domain. US law does not supercede the rights of the copyright holder, and no evidence has been presented to the contrary. Works produced by the government of Ontario are subject to the same crown copyright terms that apply to all governments in Canada, The Crown Copyright Act. The copyright belongs to "Her majesty" and lasts for 50 years from the end of the year of publication. Full stop. Provide evidence otherwise, please and thank you. Until I see something in US law that says "This law overrides the rights of the copyright holder", you are presenting here say. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, better still, just got an official statement. Read at Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Burlington_Skyway_1958.png#File:Burlington_Skyway_1958.png. This can be closed as keep. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Note It has been deleted on Commons. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 17:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, without any evidence that what I've provided is invalid. Undeletion request has been made, I will be inviting many more eyes to opine beyond the wikilawyer crew. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Note The undeletion request is at commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Burlington_Skyway_1958.png, although nothing new has happened and it was deleted by a competent admin and with a good explanation for Floydian. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 17:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That same explanation would mean the UK government wouldn't be able to relinquish its crown copyright from URAA renewal, and all those photos must be deleted. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., unlike some other countries, copyright owners can relinquish their rights. The UK government can relinquish their rights. If you are talking about the section in WP:Non-U.S. copyrights, well then I would argue that since the U.S. does not apply the rule of the shorter term, then that statement only carries validity in countries that do. The U.K. would need to relinquish all rights, not state that they don't have any. However, UK copyright law is not really relevant to Canadian law. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 19:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it is relevant to this discussion. If the Canadian government can't announce that they consider crown copyright expiry to public domain to apply worldwide, than neither can the UK government. They would need to jump through all the same hoops as you are making me do. However, from what I can tell, all they did was send an email to OTRS saying the exact same damn thing. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US law is clear: unless the copyright holder voluntarily has renounced its copyright to the file, the file is copyrighted in the United States. According to the above, the copyright holder according to Canadian law is Her Majesty. When determining the copyright holder, the US follows Canadian law (see e.g. w:Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.), so Her Majesty is also the copyright holder in the United States. Permission needs to come from Her Majesty. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the Crown Copyright Office is the legal representative of her. So what do I need here, a letter from the Queen? For fuck sakes, this is overkill and petty beyond belief. This mountain from a molehill completely disillusions me from continuing my work on Wikipedia. Just as it scares off potential contributors of photos, which I have also dealt with on numerous occasions. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entity referred to as "Her Majesty" in the copyright law needs to give permission. In Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burlington Skyway 1958.png, User:Asclepias suggested that the term "Her Majesty" means different things in different situations: "Her Majesty in right of Canada", "Her Majesty in right of Ontario" and similar. Maybe these count as separate entities which need to give permission independently of each others for all of its own works? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps we can trust the statement from an official government spokesperson as accurate unless we receive a notice otherwise. At that point, we could apologize and provide the evidence that we felt validated the public domain status of the works and promptly delete them. Precautions have been taken, now is the time to expand! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I can certainly understand Floydian's frustration here. He's already clearly shown that the Government of Canada's position is "Crown Copyright expires = PD worldwide". Given Copyright is a federal matter, the Province of Ontario doesn't have the right to overrule this law. So the question of "Her Majesty in right of Canada" vs. "Her Majesty in right of Ontario" is a red herring. The latter held the copyright, but the latter is still subject to the federal law and its interpretations. That means the copyright expired 50-years after publication, worldwide. As an aside I find the arguments and consistently moving goalposts from the pair of deletionists in these debates rather embarrassing and actively harmful to the project. Shame on you. Resolute 15:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept as fair use for one article. Diannaa (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Admcphillips.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unfree in USA, see ((Not-PD-US-URAA)). Stefan2 (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to fairuse subject is dead -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with ((dfu)) or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.