Template talk:PD-UKGov

Update due on 1st June 2007

On 1st June 2007, para 1 of this template will need to be replaced with the following fixed text. This is due to the interaction of a fixed date (1st June 1957), when the old Copyright Act 1956 came into force, and a moving date whereby copyright in some cases expires 50 years after creation. --MichaelMaggs 11:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• 1. A photograph taken prior to 1 June 1957; or

This is wrong. Copyrights do not expire until the end of the year so no update will need to be made at the start of June. However at the end of 2007 the distinction mentioned below will need to be made. David Newton 22:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Update done. --MichaelMaggs 06:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Update due on 1st January 2008

On 1st January 2008, para 1 of this template will need to be replaced with the following text. This is due to the interaction of a fixed date (1st June 1957), when the old Copyright Act 1956 came into force, and a moving date whereby copyright in some cases expires 50 years after publication or creation. --MichaelMaggs 11:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• 1a. A photograph taken prior to 1 June 1957; or
• 1b. A photograph taken on or after 1 June 1957 and which was published before 1st January {{ #expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} - 50 }};or. Done. --MichaelMaggs 21:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright restoration

The HMSO letter says, "Therefore, to use your example, material published in 1954, and any Crown copyright material published before that date, would now be out of copyright, and may be freely reproduced throughout the world." However, this may not apply in the U.S., because of URAA (Uruguay Rounds Agreement Act) copyright restorations. In general, anything copyrighted in the home country in 1996 (e.g. any Crown Copyright work created in the UK 1946 to 1995), is copyrighted in the U.S. 95 years from publication. See Cornell's copyright chart. Thus, anything made before 1946 should be PD in the U.S., but anything from 1946 to 2007 would not be PD in the U.S. until at least 2041. Currently, images affected by this are being tagged {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}; they may eventually have to be deleted. Superm401 - Talk 09:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think government works are entirely different... they are a special form of PD-author, effectively. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Commons talk:Licensing#Foreign government works and URAA, it seems that the HMSO letter is a declaration that the expiry of Crown Copyrights apply worldwide (hence ignoring/giving up the URAA restorations).

{{editprotected}} Can we reword the template to reflect this, so that

More information. See also Copyright, Crown copyright artistic works and HMSO Email Reply.

is changed to:

HMSO has declared that the expiry of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide (ref: HMSO Email Reply).
More information. See also Copyright and Crown copyright artistic works.

Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Mike.lifeguard 18:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-artistic works

Why was the non-artistic work text removed? Commons hosts a large amount of non-artistic work, such as scientific and educational content, so I've put this back.. Superm401 - Talk 09:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It was removed correctly. This tag applies only to what is legally an "artistic work" under UK copyright law. An "artistic work" is not restricted to what is commonly called "art", and it includes any painting, drawing, sketch, doodle and so on irrespective of artistic merit. Works falling into this category can and do include images with scientific and educational content. What is (deliberately) excluded from this tag are "literary works", ie works that are copyright by virtue of text (eg a book, printed article and so on). The copyright criteria for these under UK law are different. --MichaelMaggs 11:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, my mistake. This may be worth clarifying further, because people have been known to occasionally upload purely text content here instead of Wikisource. Superm401 - Talk 11:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What about sound recordings? I'm thinking of File:Another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler.ogg, for example (speech by a British politician). This discussion from 2011 is somewhat inconclusive regarding whether a recording is an "artistic work" for the purposes of this template. Superm401 - Talk 04:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

UK Government artistic works

{{editprotected}} Please change the category and {{incat}} template to categorize into "UK Government artistic works" instead of "UK Government images", per this discussion at the Village pump. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Create the category first, please. --Mormegil (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

And  Done --Mormegil (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Link check please

Can someone checkout, and if needs be amend, the link in the template http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/crown-a.pdf now appears just to be a blank page with no pdf file available. 62.25.109.201 10:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

50 years

Anybody explain why if Crown copyright expires after 50 years the date is still 1957 and not 1962? Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: A photo made by order of the Queen or a government department and used commercially between 1957 and 1965 is in the public domain. An image created before 1957 is in the public domain regardless of whether or not it has been used commercially. [1] Firebrace (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

HMSO

{{Edit request}} Shouldn't we have HMSO linked to Office of Public Sector Information in the template text ? -- Juergen 37.252.106.163 13:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I second this request. Had no idea what HMSO meant and had to google it. —capmo (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Licensing templates are not really the place to add various wikilinks. I don't see this as a very necessary change and the number of templates that would have to be changed due to translations makes this seem like a waste of server resources. Sorry. If more people ever come around and say that they want this just reactive the edit template. --Majora (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add Machine readable datas

{{Edit request}} As per m:File metadata cleanup drive/How to fix metadata, please add these

|class = licensetpl
|text = <span class="licensetpl_long">''This artistic work ...(tl;dr)... ''See also [[:en:Copyright|Copyright]] and [http://web.archive.org/web/20090317005703/http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/crown-a.pdf Crown copyright artistic works]''.
<div style="display: none">
<span class="licensetpl_short">PD-UKGov</span>
<span class="licensetpl_link">{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}</span>
</div>

above. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

No longer necessary template caries Machine readable data. --Jarekt (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please consider using HTTPS links

{{Edit request}} A number of links in the template support HTTPS, and the Wikimedia sites have basically gone to HTTPS by default. Please consider changing the following links in {{PD-UKGov/en}} to use HTTPS:

• http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-May/022055.html should be changed to https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-May/022055.html
• http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/crown-copyright.htm should be changed to https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/crown-copyright.htm
• http://web.archive.org/web/20090317005703/http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/crown-a.pdf should be changed to https://web.archive.org/web/20090317005703/http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/crown-a.pdf

--Gazebo (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Jarekt (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed amendments to template text

{{Edit request}} Proposal to amend the text to reflect other scenarios in [2]:

This artistic work created by the United Kingdom Government is in the public domain.

This is because it is public domain as per the National Archives flowchart, which may include one of the following:

1. It is a photograph or engraving created by the United Kingdom Government and taken prior to 1 June 1957; or
2. It is an artistic work which was commercially published prior to 1967; or
3. It is an artistic work other than a photograph or engraving (e.g. a painting) which was created by the United Kingdom Government prior to 1967; or
4. It is a work other than an artistic work, a photograph or engraving which was published prior to 1967.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Any comments on this? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I will make these changes. Turns out only admins can. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

•  Question What is the difference between 'published' and 'commercially published'? What determines if a publication was 'commercial' or not? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Stefan2: ‘published’ relates to pre-1989 documents, and ‘commercially published’ to post-1989:

Section 163 of the 1988 law (the most recent)

Section 39 of the 1956 law (the prior law)

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thinking about this, your question has brought out a mistake in the current template, which appears to have been there since the first version, 12 years ago. The word “commercially” in the second bullet should be deleted, as it is not in either the flowchart or the legislation on which the flowchart is based. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Onceinawhile can you make it easier for the reviewers and highlight somehow the differences? --Jarekt (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Jarekt: the above text shows underlining for the next text and strikeout for deleted text, using the current version as a base. Is that what you were after? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I have made a couple of further tidyups in the proposed text above, per my conversation with Stefan above. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

'Commercially published' appears at two places in the flow chart.

1. Answer 'no' to the first question. You are now asked to check if the work was 'published'. Ask 'yes' and you're now asked to check if the work was 'commercially published.
2. Go back to the first question, and answer yes, no, no, yes, and you're again asked to check if the work was 'commercially published'.

I propose a reduction to just three cases:

1. It was published prior to 1974; or
2. It is a photograph or engraving created prior to 1 June 1957; or
3. It is an artistic work other than a photograph or engraving (e.g. a painting) which was created prior to 1974.

This looks correct to me (unless we need to differ between 'published' and 'commercially published' in which case it becomes more complex). If a work was published prior to 1967, then it was also created prior to 1967. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, wait, the 1957 rule isn't applicable to engravings, right? Those always seem to be 50 years from publication, no matter how old they are. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with your simplifications, but might clarify that 2 and 3 refer to “unpublished” materials. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Revised proposal:

It was published prior to 1974; or if not published prior to that date:

1. It is a photograph created prior to 1 June 1957; or
2. It is an artistic work other than a photograph or engraving (e.g. a painting) which was created prior to 1974.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The text or if not published prior to that date is not needed as the conditions below are true even if the work was published before that date. That text just makes the template more complex and confusing, so it's better to remove it. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

A tricky thing about changing text of a license template is that if you have a lot of images that met conditions of the old template than you need to make sure that all the "old: images also meet all the conditions of the new template. If a lot changes in a template than it is unclear which image was following which set of rules, than it is better to just create new template. In this case it seems like the proposed changes are still in flux. One big change is the removal of work by United Kingdom Government requirement. If we remove that than why is it called {{PD-UKGov}} ? --Jarekt (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jarekt: we are broadening the scope, so it won’t impact existing images.

The removal of the UK Govt text is simply presentational. It is already stated in the first line of template that this applies only to UK Govt creations, so we don’t need to repeat it in every line.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Below if the Before text:

This artistic work created by the United Kingdom Government is in the public domain. This is because it is one of the following: It is a photograph created by the United Kingdom Government and taken prior to 1 June 1957; or It was commercially published prior to 1974; or It is an artistic work other than a photograph or engraving (e.g. a painting) which was created by the United Kingdom Government prior to 1974. HMSO has declared that the expiry of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide (ref: HMSO Email Reply) More information. See also Copyright and Crown copyright artistic works.

Can you copy and show proposed After text? --Jarekt (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Below is the After text:

This work created by the United Kingdom Government is in the public domain. This is because it was published prior to 1974; or if not: It is a photograph created prior to 1 June 1957; or It is an artistic work other than a photograph or engraving (e.g. a painting) which was created prior to 1974. HMSO has declared that the expiry of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide (ref: HMSO Email Reply) More information. See also Copyright and Crown copyright artistic works.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Below is an Alternate proposal, for clarity:

This work created by the United Kingdom Government is in the public domain. This is because it was published prior to 1974; or if not, it was created prior to: 1 June 1957 if a photograph; or 1 January 1974 if an artistic work other than a photograph or engraving (e.g. a painting) HMSO has declared that the expiry of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide (ref: HMSO Email Reply) More information. See also Copyright and Crown copyright artistic works.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not like the changing order of the equivalent OR statements. many discussions refer to meeting first or third condition of the template. If you reorder them than they are hard to follow. How about

This artistic work created by the United Kingdom Government is in the public domain. This is because it is one of the following: It is a photograph taken prior to 1 June 1957; or It was published prior to 1974; or It is an artistic work other than a photograph or engraving (e.g. a painting) which was created prior to 1974. HMSO has declared that the expiry of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide (ref: HMSO Email Reply) More information. See also Copyright and Crown copyright artistic works.

It is a minimal change from the current version, but much less cluttered. --Jarekt (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Fine, but please delete “artistic” from the first line. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done EN and PL versions. Can others correct other languages? --Jarekt (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Need a little help

Hello, I have a Photo of Indian and British Army Join exercise. The Photo with a Unknown Author was first Published on 25 February 2020 on the Official Website site of British Army and nothing as such was mentioned regarding the Copyright Claim regarding the usage of the Photo. Now my Query is it legal to Upload the Photo in Wikipedia by giving the template:- PD-UKGov assuming it to be a work of a Employee of UK government (as no Proper details regarding the actual author was present)? Swastik Mridha (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The copyright expires 50 years after publication, so if it was first published in 2020, then you can't upload the picture before 2071. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

MOD do use OGL and these would be fine for Commons regardless of date taken, but images may also be released by the British Army as Crown Copyright without OGL and for these the 50 year rule applies. If you provide a link, then others might help check the example for you.

By the way, this is a template talk page, where hardly anyone is reading. These types of specific copyright question are better at COM:VP/C. --Fæ (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

This template should belong to "Category:PD-Gov license tags"

This template should belong to Category:PD-Gov license tags. This category is missing in this template. I am not authorized to edit this template so would someone with the authority please modify it. Thanks--D7CY689 (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Category removal

{{Edit request}} Would you remove this category Category:PD-EUGov tag from this template, due to Brexit. --Frontman830 (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done, I think (diff) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)