Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Library and Archives Canada non-PD images

[edit]

A - E

[edit]

F - J

[edit]

K - Q

[edit]

R - W

[edit]

Work on this issue is in progress at the en:wiki: status

Deleted

[edit]

PD Images

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]

These have all been tagged with "Copyrighted free use" due to text in the LAC catalogue of "restrictions on use: nil". However, this text refers the restrictions place on LAC by the original photographer, and is not a license. See an email from LAC and the copyright notice on the LAC website. My understanding of Canadian copyright law is that for photographs after 1949, life of creator + 70 years is required for PD, so I've nominated all the post-1949 images I found with a quick scan.

I know a lot of work has been put into uploading and cataloging these images, and we haven't received notice from LAC, but I think it's unfair to re-users to use images from Commons which they think are "free", but could ultimately land them a cease and desist notice from LAC. Some day these images will all be PD, and I suspect they will waiting for us in the LAC catalogue. --Padraic 14:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of these images were uploaded but a handful of users, so I left a catch-all notice on their userpages, instead of the standard single-image template. I hope that's alright. --Padraic 15:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete them all. Speedy, anyone? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoah, or not. What's this about "they also seem to be asserting control over those images which are now PD"? Are such images listed here (if so, delist them)? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. As I said above, these are all post-1949 images, which mean they cannot be PD, as 70 years has not passed since the date of creation, never mind the death of the creator. I would hold off on the Speedy just in case any of the uploaders may have a reason to identify them as PD. --Padraic 18:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And shouldn't that be 1939? *blinks* Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 18:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to Template:PD-Canada. My understanding is there was a legal change which affected everything after January 1, 1949, which is the reason why the creator death date is irrelevant for pre-1949 photos. --Padraic 18:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard me, I misunderstood your point, wasn't thinking very hard and was doing 2009 minus 70... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am I right that we can upload these images to individual projects with a FUR? For instance, Image:Ben Johnson Seoul 1988.jpg given that LAC permits their re-use with copyright attribution and there is no longer an opportunity to make a free image of the same subject? Franamax 20:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could give a FUR, but I think it would be unrelated to the LAC permission, since one of their criteria is "You do not manipulate and/or modify the material reproduced". But yes, my main point is that these don't belong on Commons (although I am also generating a similiar list of mistagged images at en.wp - I'm sure some of them wil be saved by fair use). --Padraic 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to break them up into smaller groups, feel free. However, I think your example is flawed: the copyright notice I linked to above applies to the entire catalogue, and makes it clear that commercial use is prohibit. The "reproductions on use" is not intended for external re-users; rather it is the limits imposed by the original photographer on LAC itself. These two parts of the catalogue are contradictory -- which is why I emailed them in the first place. I think their response is clear. --Padraic 20:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from their email:

The terms of re-use of material which appears on your website,specifically granting permission to modify or create derivative products,does not meet our criteria to ensure that the authenticity of the originalmaterial which comes from our collections is retained. Additionally, the terms of re-use on your website state that the material can be copied and distributed directly from your website. Library and Archives Canada requires that we be contacted for any re-use of our original material and we supply the copies of the material to ensure that the authenticity is retained. This is achieved by licensing on a "one-time" use only. Any subsequent use or re-use of our material is subject to a separate license.

--Padraic 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was just reading that email in response to your last message. My mistake, disregard my comments. Resolute 20:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we separate this list into images with no wikilinks, which can be speedied; and images used in projects, which we will need to look at individually to construct FUR's? Also, is there a method to notify the other projects that they will need to do this too? Also also, I'm not exactly clear on the process to put a non-free image onto en:wiki, will it get speedied because it duplicates a commons image (there are bots doing this)? Thanks! Franamax 21:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best way to do that would be on the talk page of the articles where it is being used, e.g. "This article uses xxxx.jpg, which will deleted from Commons May X, 2008. Should you wish to use it on your project under a fair-use rationale, be sure to make a local copy before May X." --Padraic 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks, I'm relatively sure I'll be doing those efforts on en:wiki, people tend to either let things go as they are or rail against the horribility of actually having to justify using other people's property. I'll try it myself and I might be able to get other people to help. Now my further question is: is there an interwiki bot available which could place those notices in the relevant languages on the xx:wikis? I could generate those notices in English, but I don't have a crosswiki-login at the moment and English doesn't seem to be an appropriate language to use for all the various wikis. BTW, I'm running through the images to find the usages, if that's pointless, please let me know, this is my first try at preserving images across multiple languages. Thanks! Franamax 00:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete the many unused images list above. They are copyvios and should be removed ASAP. Do they need to be tagged in order to be speedy deleted, or can an admin just do it? --Padraic 19:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse speedy's for the unused images. Plea for time on the others as I am still assessing use, changing crop-vio's, and organizing a response to preserve the image use. Franamax 22:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed (I think) the usage survey, changed/changing the crop-vio usage across various wikis, and the toolserver db needs some time to replicate now. I've asked for bot help on en:wiki and will shortly try to organize a mini-project to address these issues. I also plan to place speedy notations beside all the copyvios which can be removed at once. Thanks! Franamax 01:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your hard work. The ones that have been flagged for speedy deletion have been nuked. Keep going! Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks a lot for all your work, Franamax. I can't spend any more time on this right now, but I'm happy to know it's being dealt with. --Padraic 12:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I made a list of en.wp-hosted LAC images at w:User:Padraic/LAC. Those will need to be FUR'd or deleted at some point. --Padraic 14:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've identified all images that can be speedy'd without loss to any of the projects. Now comes the hard part - local uploads and FUR's, notifications to other projects, I can hear the en:wiki patrollers and image-bots sharpening their knives in anticipation :) I've copied the salvageable list to this page and I will try to organize some help (next two days) and start plugging through it on my own, starting with the cropvio's, and update the progress here. I understand these are all commons-ineligible and should probably be nuked immediately, but I'll ask for forebearance as long as we are showing progress. Is it reasonable to set a two-to-three week timeframe to clear this up? One week to en:upload and work out the issues, another week to notify the other projects and let them sort it out (or ignore), the last week for closeout? Anyway, I'll keep working on it, thanks! Franamax 23:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you are dedicated. I was perfectly willing to let other wikis go back to the LAC catalogue themselves after these images were deleted from Commons, but you are certainly making this easier for everyone. Congrats on your spirit of co-operation. --Padraic 13:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
^^ I'm Lewis Collard, and I endorse this message. ;) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 15:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dicussion - copyright

[edit]
Canada is actually life+50, eh? WilyD 17:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, but looking at Padraic's flowchart link, if the copyright has been assigned to LAC, does it now have a corporate owner, thus PD at creation + 50? Curiouser and curiouser. Franamax 21:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not Crown Copyright if the Queen gets her mitts on the ownership, nor does it switch if a corp buys it. If a corp creates it, or the Queen (or her agents) create it, then it's a straight 50 years. Some of the "official portraits" then would be 50 years straight up - an authorised parlimentary photograph (for instance, I put up one of Trudeau) would be Crown, and thus 50 years (assuming LAC isn't licencing it freely, which I'm not convinced of in all cases, anyways.) WilyD 18:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, Image:Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II 5.jpg should be crown copyright, and hence expired anyhow.
Oh curse the day I ever saw this page! :) Now if I'm seeing things right 1) the Trudeau pic you refer to is Image:PierreTrudeau1980.jpg which is on the delete list because it's not yet +50 (actually life+50, 'cause it is copyright by a person); 2) All the Coronation...QEII pics are PD now and I can change the tags to reflect that; 3) and I think I found another one for the list: Image:Her_Majesty_Queen_Elizabeth_II_with_Prime_Minister_The_Rt._Hon._Pierre_Elliott_Trudeau_signing_the_Constitution.jpg. Have I got all that right? Franamax 19:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err, not sure about the context of that Trudeau pic, but it doesn't matter - it's always at least 50 years to PD'ing - but if it's an official portrait, it's likely Crown Copyright, which is a flat 50 years. The Coronation pics should've entered the public domain in Canada on January 1st, 2004 - bcopyright is 50 year post creation for photographs if the owner is a corporation (in this case, a crown corp, but fine ....), agree with the constitution signing to go on the list ... *sigh*. WilyD 20:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be much simpler if we would all just run for Parliament in Canada and change the law... :) Franamax 22:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are some mis-licensed images on en:wiki also. Please list any problems you find in a sub-section above (preferably), or alternatively at my en:wiki user-page for progress on addressing this. Franamax 03:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PD Questions

[edit]

Several of these images are Public Domain. Notably, photographs whose first owner is a corporation have their copyright expire 50 years after production. [3] Crown Copyright is also 50 years.

  1. Image:Canadian Supreme Court justices circa 1950.jpg Photograph whose first owner was a corporation, copyright expires 50 years after production - i.e. Jan 1, 2001
  2. Image:ChurchillStLaurent1954.jpg Photograph whose first owner was a corporation, copyright expires 50 years after production - i.e. Jan 1, 2005
  3. Image:Louisstlaurent.jpg expired Jan 1, 2001 - Note that LAC says "Copyright expired" NOT "Restrictions on use:nil"
  4. Image:Coronation of Elizabeth II 1.jpg, Image:Coronation_of_Elizabeth_II_2.jpg, Image:Coronation_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II_3.jpg, Image:Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II 4.jpg and Image:Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II 5.jpg Taken by the National Film Board in 1953 = Public Domain'd January 1st, 2004.

These three are the only ones I've so identified, although one of Diefenbaker says "Circa 1958" - obviously we care whether it was '58+ or '57 or earlier, the latter meaning it would be PD. WilyD 18:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! --Padraic 19:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't everything on commons need to be public domain in the United States? In that case don't we need to follow these rules? Gustav VH 18:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right. I haven't come across a clear explanation of the rules on Canadian-American copyright on Commons -- maybe I'll write one. Based on that link, it looks like everything which was PD in Canada as of Jan 1, 1996 is fine, whereas everything else won't be PD untill 95 years after publication. Which means the above 4 images are no good (although if we ever start a Canadian Commons we can put them there). --Padraic 15:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't it also depend on whether the works were published or not? Quite how we would determine whether works were or were not published I have no idea... Gustav VH 15:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "published", or "published in the US"? --Padraic 15:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean might some of this work come under the "Never Published, Never Registered Works" rules at the top? Gustav VH 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that could be a gigantic headache, since LAC hosts a lot of unpublished private collections (e.g. Category:Photographs by William James Topley, although that passes the 70 years pma test). Something to watch for. --Padraic 14:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main point seems to be if a previously unpublished work created before 1978 was published between 1978-2002, in which case it is PD in life of author + 70 years or 31 December, 2047 (whichever is later). If created before 1978 but published in 2003 or after it is just life of author + 70 years. So how on earth can we check what has and what hasn't been published? Gustav VH 16:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no freaking clue. It sucks for re-users, but I think this ends up being one of those situations wher we just host it untill/unless we get a takedown notice. --Padraic 16:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started a thread on commons-l on the idea of a repository for PD-Canada works which are ineligible for Commons. --Padraic 18:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A point that has been overlooked. Image:Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II 5.jpg is a British, not Canadian, work. Presumably the photographer was working for "The Crown" which as it was in the UK would mean the UK government. The British and Canadian crown are embodied in the same person, but they are different legal entities. It makes no difference to the free/non-free status - just means it should be PD-UKGov instead of PD-Canada. (addition)Actually, I'm not even sure of that, as looks like it is a Canadian worker who took the pictures, but UK copyright law would also apply on images taken in London (so now 3 countries matter?). Without detailed author info, I don't see how we can know which Crown the photographer was working for - they may have been working for them all simultaneously even.--Nilfanion 22:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHO Are these PEOPLE

[edit]

Who are these people that have so much free time to delete everything on Wikipedia.

The Archives of Canada is a public organization, therefore all of their work is owned by the people of Canada. The archives of Canada is not going to be against not for profit redistribution of Canadian history.

Would you delete mongers get a freakin LIFE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.243.90 (talk • contribs) 09:59, May 23, 2008 (UTC)

Everything on Commons has to be availiable for any use, including commercial use and free modification. Archives of Canada does not permit either of these. Gustav VH 14:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if you think that LAC materials should be public domain, please write your MP! --Padraic 14:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that this particular anon user has the faintest idea what s/he's on about, or s/he wouldn't be using the words "get" and "life" in the same sentence. :-) From what I've heard, "get a life" was already a hoary old cliché, a substitute for debate rather than an aid to it, some 20 years ago. -- 217.171.129.74 00:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, except for a few which are, in fact, PD; we can't go on hosting copyright violations indefinitely. A curse against the kind of irresponsibility that leads to messes like this. :\ Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 09:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted a few images which are either PD-Canada or PD-UKGov, in the public domain section above. These were clearly deleted by mistake. Yann (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Library_and_Archives_Canada_non-PD_images&oldid=788003930"