On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
geni wrote:
2008/5/25 Padraic
<user.padraic(a)gmail.com>om>:
Based on our amateur legal analysis at
[[Commons:Deletion requests/Library
and Archives Canada non-PD images]], there is a potentially large class of
images which are PD in Canada, but not the US: those works whose copyright
was initially held by corporations (or the Crown), which expire 50 years
after publication, but only after 95 years in the US due to the URAA.
In the case of crown copyright can the government legaly enforce any
claim or would they run into a domestic lawsuit if they tried?
Domestic lawsuit over what? After 50 years it's in the public domain.
While the issue has previously been raised about public domain being
overridden by crown privilege this seems contrary to the Canadian court
tendency to diminish the influence of crown privilege.
Err, presumeably the Queen of Canada could try to sue Wikimedia or the
uploaders in an American court. These images are clearly PD in Canada
(and some, at least, are explicitly acknowledged as such) but may not
be PD in the States.
> Secondly are you sure the US wouldn't consider
crown copyright expired
> the equivalent of released into the public domain?
Err, this is very ambigious, but it's also not clear whether the
images in question, when produced by Crown Corporations, would fall
under Crown Copyright, or whether they're PD through a clause in
Canadian Copyright law that puts photographs into the public domain 50
years after they're taken if their first own is a corporation.
One of the problems here is the continuing uncertainty
over the US
non-recognition of the rule of the shorter term. Canada does
specifically recognize the shorter term except as it relates to works
from the United States or Mexico.
Ec
_______________________________________________
WilyD