Commons:Deletion requests/Copyright assigned files from Library and Archives Canada

Copyright assigned files from Library and Archives Canada[edit]

The following files are under copyright and not suitable for the Commons. All of these image details state: 'Copyright: Assigned by author' or 'Copyright:Library and Archives Canada/Government of Canada' and were assumed to be somehow free solely because it says 'Restrictions: Nil" under the files on the LAC site & incorrectly using the {{Copyrighted free use}} template. I was unsure of this so I reached out to a LAC employee via email and they had this to say in a reply:

"Good morning,

The information found on the Wikimedia page that you refer to is incorrect https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Turner_1968_cropped.jpg. A Library and Archives Canada (LAC) licence is required for use of this work.

If you look at the source of the image, as recommended in your link, the source file File:John Turner 1968.jpg - Wikimedia Commons clearly states Library and Archives Canada does not allow free use of its copyrighted works.

Please let us know which LAC images you would like to use and we will assess and provide any necessary licences for your intended purposes. There is no fee for associated with our Crown or LAC licences.

We appreciate you having brought this to our attention and will notify the team responsible for our images on Wikimedia.

Best to you..."
From this information, I don't think these files are free and should be deleted as copyright is retained. The only LAC images that can be uploaded to the Commons must clearly state 'Copyright:Expired' - not 'Copyright: Assigned'.--PascalHD (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not an expert ....but we had a talk about Duncan Cameron a few times before...its wonderful its all open Terms of use:Photographs: All photographs except the 5 Time Canada cover lay-outs (accession number 1976-079) are open; no restrictions on use or reproduction. Moxy (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Despite some parts of the LAC website referring to "no restrictions", LAC does not allow free use of its works which are under copyright (see mailing list and past deletion discussions). This means that no image from LAC should be used with the CopyrightedFreeUse template. Only public domain LAC images are allowed on Commons..." per the category notice https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Library_and_Archives_Canada

The photos still retain copyright - "Archives Canada does not allow free use of its copyrighted works..." is stated quite clearly. It's a mere assumption that the short phrase 'no restrictions on use' automatically grants someone unlimited copyright free use.
PascalHD (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before deleting, though, can't someone go over the individual images and see if the library will grant permission? Their letter indicates that they very well might, for at least some of them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds nice but I'm pretty sure one of their conditions on use is 'No modifications' which would not be in line with Commons policy. PascalHD (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usually that means no modifications to the file we host, misrepresenting it as the original file. We always maintain the original file, even if we create cropped versions. --RAN (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Must have missed an image, this was one should go too https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Child_pushing_a_stroller_down_the_street_near_Lebreton_Flats.jpg PascalHD (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: As seen in the "What links here" tool for File:Daniel Johnson Sr. infobox.jpg, this file was mentioned, with others, in the discussion of last year Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jean Drapeau Expo 67 MIKAN 4943081.jpg, discussion which, I commented, could hopefully serve as a test case for what Commons wants to do with the photographs of the CCWE in general. That discussion for File:Jean Drapeau Expo 67 MIKAN 4943081.jpg was closed as kept. I suggest to continue consistently with the same decision and keep File:Daniel Johnson Sr. infobox.jpg as a CCWE photo and copyright expired after 50 years. (Or alternatively start a new discussion to delete and forbid the CCWE photos). -- Asclepias (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notice how the {{PD-Canada-Crown}} says ‘Published’ and not ‘created’ 50 years ago? Only Crown works that were published follow the 50 year expiration rule. If a work was never published it maintains perpetual copyright under the crown or government, even if it is older than 1949. What you see here from what I’ve nominated is some images that are unpublished crown works, and Copyright assigned works. Assigned works means it came from a private individual who donated their photos to the lac. These assigned photos were not taken under the direction of the government, hence the ‘Private’ source.
The only images that are permissible for the Commons must state Copyright: Expired. If the source is private, it follows {{PD-Canada}}. If the source is Government, it follows {{PD-Canada-Crown}}. PascalHD (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Section 12 of the Copyright act: “Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work is, or has been, prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to Her Majesty and in that case shall continue for the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year.” PascalHD (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stay focused on this specific file discussed in this subsection. Its source is "government". This file has nothing to do with a private source, nor with a private donation, nor with copyright assigned to LAC (and as such, it is outside the scope of a deletion request titled "Copyright assigned files from Library and Archives Canada", which already includes too many different situations to be in one DR, but nevermind). Did you read the previous discussion linked above? The question of publication in the context of Crown copyright is specifically one of the questions discussed. The idea is that the public relations photos of the CCWE were published. Public relations material is made by definition to be published and it can reasonably be said to have indeed been published at the time for which they were to be used. I don't know what useful purpose would be met by assuming that the CCWE PR material would have been unpublished. But even if one were to assume that some photo might not have been published at that time (in this case 1967), it would still anyway have been available to the public through the national archives in 1969 at the dissolution of the CCWE. You're welcome to disagree, of course. To have an in-depth serious discussion on those points, and get the good general picture of the whole situation of the CCWE fonds, was actually why those points, and others, were submitted last year. But please address the points already discussed. Some other details were also noted, for example that some LAC notices for the photos of this fonds are now updated to "Copyright expired", whereas some other notices are not updated yet. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I nominated all these files as they were incorrectly using the Copyright Free Use template. I checked the source on these photos, all of which state copyright is not expired. I even reached out to the LAC themselves - and if the copyright holder is saying you cannot use their copyright material freely, that’s grounds for deletion. I’m simply following the Commons policy. Look, I am not a fan of the way the Canadian government handles their Copyrights. In my opinion, all government works should be Public Domain like the USA. I thinks it’s quite ridiculous that the government hasn’t at least embraced an open license.
In regards to the CCWE Fonds, like i mentioned the government holds permanent copyright on unpublished works. In my view, only some of those images would have been published (the ones that say copyright: expired) and the rest weren’t. The LAC site is frequently updated when copyrights expire, so it’s unlikely they missed these ones. I don’t think merely being available through archives would be considered as published.
We don’t have to agree & I welcome others opinions and points of view on this situation. PascalHD (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In retrospect, I can support separating out the Government sourced images from the Private/Copyright: Assigned images, as they probably deserve a separate deletion nomination.
Files in question:
File:Thrill show at CNE in Toronto that was also presented at Expo 67.jpg
File:Daniel Johnson Sr. infobox.jpg
File:Various ethnic groups from many areas on Canada Day and the Centennial of Confederation.jpg
File:USS BUCK ammo transfer to HMCS HAIDA off Korea.jpg PascalHD (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the reply. Let's start with the last point, i.e. making the material available through archives. The analysis will, I'm afraid, be somewhat lengthy, but I hope understandable. Making copies available to the public is the very definition of publication, in section 2.2(1) of the Copyright Act [1]: For the purposes of this Act, publication means [...] making copies of a work available to the public. This was examined by the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. Teranet Inc., [2019] 3 SCR 418, [2] (the only SCC decision examining specifically Crown copyright). In the Keatley case, the documents in question were plans of land surveys which were deposited in a Land Registry Office. Their conservation and access was thus under the control of the government. Members of the public could request copies. The courts (the trial court, the Court appeals and the Supreme Court) held that those plans in the custody of the Office were available to the public and thus met the definition of being published per section 2.2(1) of the Copyright Act and met the notion of having been published by or under the control of the government of section 12 of the Copyright Act. The seven judges on the bench for that SCC case were unanimous in that conclusion and on this point about publication (although two groups of judges arrive at the conclusion through slightly different paths of reasoning on some other points).

I submit that the situation is essentially identical for the public archives. Indeed, similarly, the material deposited in the Public Archives (succeeded by the National Archives circa 1987, succeded by Library and Archives since 2004) is under the control of the government and is available to the public, who can obtain copies on request. The precise modalities of availability have evolved over a century, but the essence is the same. The old Public Archives Act (RSC 1957, c. 222) was rather short and thus, before 1967, it may have been more informal. In 1967, the federal cabinet of ministers adopted the principle more officially, further formalized in its 1973 directive. The National Archives Act [3] and the now current Library and Archives of Canada Act [4] include the mission to facilitate access of the pubic to the material. I don't think it necessary to dig into what precise modalities were in force when the CCWE material entered the archives, perhaps circa 1969-1971, as compared to 2023. It is sufficient that availabily did exist. That's where the mention "Restrictions on use: Nil" is useful. In short, IMO, unrestricted government archives are published, in the sense of the Copyright Act and applying the view of the Supreme Court. A nice consequence of public archives being considered published is that it nicely counterbalances the atrocious notion of perpetual copyright, which would otherwise be quite troubling. Government items eventually end up in the public archives and thus being published, excluding explicitly restricted material, perpetual copyright is avoided.

The above is about the archives point. But, as I previously said, IMO the CCWE information/public relations material can be considered having been published already by the CCWE itself. The interest for Commons is not so much the whole CCWE fonds, but this photo and the other material in the specific section of the fonds that contains the material of the Information Branch of the Public Relations Department of the CCWE. The mission of the Information Branch was to keep the public informed by various means, brochures, pamphlets, folders, press releases, etc. By its nature of material destined to information of the public and public relations, the material of this section of the fonds was, at least, available for the public in the sense of the Copyright Act and as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

I understand why you make the DR. Indeed the "copyrighted free use" tag is not the correct tag. I made DRs in the past for that reason. However, in some cases like this one, it can be replaced with a proper tag, such as PD-Canada. I think you are a bit too optimistic about what LAC can do on the numerous items with its limited budget and staff. Various inconsistencies can occur in notices. As you say, LAC doesn't issue free licenses on their copyrighted material, but the point is that the public domain material is not their copyrighted material. We can try to determine that according to the legislation and to the facts in each case. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You bring forward some great points. I was simply following what the LAC site said in regards to the copyright status. I had not considered the possibility that certain works could be potentially Public Domain or incorrectly noted on the site.
These works that are stated as Copyright: Government/LAC definitely need more investigation, and could very well be public domain. I can support keeping the 4 files mentioned above, for further in depth discussion. There’s plenty of other images I’ve seen on the Archives site I’d love to upload, but have stayed away from due to the uncertainty, would love to determine their status.
However the rest of the files that are Copyright: Assigned, must go. Previous DRs support this. PascalHD (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also... if merely being available through the archives is considered as published, than its safe to say that every single 'Government' sourced image which states Copyright: Expired or Copyright:Crown/Government would then be considered published and PD as long as it over 50 years old - as it would have been available through the Archives to the public and therefor safe for Commons. Perhaps a few things would not have, but the vast majority would have. Interesting... I suppose the LAC is probably following what is stated in the Copyright Act, regarding 'unpublished' works and not following what has been decided in the Court ruling from 2019. As these images may have not been published in the traditional sense (Book, Newspaper, Press release), they may not be aware that access to Archives is considered published. I really appreciate your in depth analysis, I feel like I actually learned something here - I was not quite aware of all this. My apologies for making such a mess of this, just when you think you know everything about copyright law- the rug gets pulled out from under you!
Well, with that being said to summarize... I think this is the logical conclusion. - I think this is correct?

Keep - The Government sourced images - Based on points brought forward by Asclepias

File:Thrill show at CNE in Toronto that was also presented at Expo 67.jpg

File:Daniel Johnson Sr. infobox.jpg

File:Various ethnic groups from many areas on Canada Day and the Centennial of Confederation.jpg

File:USS BUCK ammo transfer to HMCS HAIDA off Korea.jpg

Delete - The Private sourced Copyright:Assigned images - Not works of the Federal Government, no Crown Copyright is/was vested. Original points brought forward still stand.

File:John Turner 1968.jpg

File:Turner 1968 cropped.jpg

File:Northrop Frye.jpg

File:Vivien Leigh 1958.jpg

File:Jean Chrétien 1967.jpg

File:OrderofCanadaFemale.jpg

File:Turner and Trudeau at the 1984 Liberal leadership convention.png

File:Geills Turner (cropped).png

File:Turner in 1984 (cropped).png

File:Turnercrop.png

File:Lester B. Pearson at desk.jpg

File:Lester B. Pearson at desk (crop).jpg