Template talk:PD-AustraliaGov

Date expired parameter
Can we please add an optional 'date epxired' parameter? The idea is that the warning about US public domain is irrelevant if the image copyright expired before 1996. Donama (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Time for an update!
Dear colleagues,

I would like to prompt some discussion, hopefully resulting in consensus, about both the wording and the graphic used in the template. My recommendations are the result of some detailed study of current Australian copyright policy and the way it is expressed in Wikimedia Commons, and communication with staff of the Australian Government department responsible for copyright.

Words

I propose that the wording of the template be changed to the following (links omitted for clarity):"This image is Crown copyright because it is owned by Australia's federal government or a government of a state or territory. It is in the Australian public domain because more than 50 years from the end of the year in which it was made or first published had elapsed at the time of uploading."

The reasons for changing, and links, are here:

Graphic

The graphic that appears in this template should be changed. The coat of arms of the Commonwealth of Australia, displayed at present, represent a different entity from the Australian Government. The official policy for the coat of arms (written in 2014, when usage of the term "Commonwealth Government" had just been changed to "Australian Government") is as follows: The Commonwealth Coat of Arms ... is the formal symbol of the Commonwealth of Australia that signifies Commonwealth authority and ownership.

The "Commonwealth of Australia" is the legal entity established by the Constitution. Where the term "Commonwealth Government" has been used previously to refer to the national government, whether in relation to the elected government or the bureaucracy that serves it, it will normally be appropriate to replace it with "Australian Government".

The logical consequence of this is that the logo should be that of the Australian Government (shown ). However, not only the Australian Government is involved: six states and two self-governing territories also share the policy. The best resolution would therefore be to use the Australian fla as the graphic.

Outcome

Other than preferring to left-align the footnote text, which so far eludes me, this is what I envisage the template would look like:

I look forward to your comments! -- SCHolar44 (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Copyrights are a Federal responsibility under the Constitution (s51(xviii)); the states an territories are not involved at all. The whole point of the template is the Australian government's declaration that once the term of copyright protection expires in Australia, the domain is worldwide and not limited to Australia. This is similar to declarations made by other countries. The Australian Government indeed has the authority to determine what of its works it places in the public domain worldwide. Other Australian laws also apply worldwide. In particular, the United States agreed to this under the FTA.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware of what you mention concerning the Constitution, . However, the states and territories are explicitly included in government copyright provisions (Copyright Act ss. 176–180, reflected in the federal policy guidance); and I think that's relevant in the PD-AusGov context.


 * Of course they are. So is the the private sector. The Commonwealth has the exclusive power to legislate on copyright.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with the DITRDC reply that's recorded in response to your inquiry (i.e. ticket #2017062010010417), which said: "I confirm that once the term of copyright protection expires in Australia, the domain is worldwide and not limited to Australia." When I telephoned their copyright branch, the person I spoke with couldn't tell me an authoritative source on which that advice was based, and I got the impression they weren't too sure (I said I'd follow with an e-mail, which I haven't done yet). By contrast, as far as I have been able to determine US copyright policy, in all its grinding detail – as in the Hirtle list, for example – makes no provision for a foreign government to over-ride US public domain time criteria. But if you could point me to where the US agreed to this under the FTA, I would be most grateful -- it will simplify the expression of PD-US factors immensely, and maybe others too. SCHolar44 (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Article 17.6. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Article 17.6 of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement covers performers and producers of phonograms. Copyright works is Article 17.5, consisting of only one sentence the gist of which is "...each Party shall provide to authors the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit the communication to the public of their works...". I can't see any provision in the agreement by which an Australian government would have authority to over-ride US authority in public domain policy, albeit I'm still keen to find out. SCHolar44 (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * In the United States you are allowed to place your works in the public domain. The Australian government owns the works. It is entitled to place them in the public domain there. It not overriding US law. Although it is certainly entitled to do so. And has done so. The US has no legal authority that we respect. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

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 at Commons. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 &#128172; at 05:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)