Template talk:PD-AustraliaGov

Time for an update!

Dear colleagues,
I have been researching in detail several aspects of Australian copyright, including copyright as it applies to expired material made by Australian governments, and especially in light of the changes introduced in 2019. As a result, I'm recommending that the {{PD-AustraliaGov}} template should be improved. My conclusion is that a change should be made from the current wording:

This image is protected by Crown Copyright because it is owned by the Australian Government or that of the states or territories, and is in the public domain because it was created or published prior to 1974 and the copyright has therefore expired. The government of Australia has declared that the expiration of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide. This has been confirmed by correspondence received by the Volunteer Response Team (Ticket:2017062010010417).

to this:

Copyright in this image was owned by the Australian Government or a government of an Australian state or territory. Because at least 50 years have elapsed since the end of the calendar year in which it was made, copyright has expired under the provisions of section 180 of the Copyright Act 1968 and it is in the public domain.

Eight key elements are involved. To make it easier to comment, I'll deal with them individually in the order in which they appear in the present template.

For anyone not intimately familiar with the criteria surrounding expiry of Australian governments' copyright material, as distinct from non-government policies, the chart I've drawn up (File:Chart -- expiry of copyright in works made by Australian governments.tif) might be useful. It's based entirely on official Australian Government policy, especially the policy in the document referenced at the foot of the chart; this includes notes 2 to 5, which are direct quotes from the document.

1. Crown copyright
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.

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

3. Governments
... 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".

4. Created or published (vs made)
... it was created or published ...
The current legislation uses only the word "made"; we should reflect that.

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

6. Authority
... 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.

Fyi ↓ Section 180 states: Copyright in copyright material subsists until 50 years after the calendar year in which the material is made if:  (a) the material is a work, sound recording or cinematograph film; and  (b) the Commonwealth or a State:     (a) is the owner; or     (b) would, but for an agreement to which section 179 applies, be the owner; of copyright in the material.

7. Application worldwide
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.)

8. Italics
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.
Sincerely, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 04:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

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. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's see...

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. Seems like a good change.

4. 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).

5. Nope, keep that -- existing template is better. The template is encoded as {{CURRENTYEAR}}-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.

6. Yes, good idea to link that. Good change.

7. 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}}.

8. 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.

Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for your thoughtful comments, Carl. Sorry for delay in responding -- somehow or other I missed your post until now. I'll carefully consider them before I respond (probably in a few days, so I can think about it thoroughly). Thanks again. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 01:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to you too, From Hill To Shore. :-) SCHolar44 (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

[New] suggestions for upgrades to the PD-Australia and PD-AustraliaGov templates

Dear fellow editors, I have been working on some suggestions for upgrades to the PD-Australia and PD-AustraliaGov templates, and for a new template for licensing Australian photographs. The suggestions encompass both the Commons and Wikipedia templates. If you would like to read/comment, please visit Template talk:PD-Australia. Cheers, Simon  –  SCHolar44 (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)