User talk:Jonbowenelsfield
Can you provide more information on how this is Public domain, as I am failing to see how a 1977 British Publication is PD in 1996, based on the information you provided?
If you are a representative of the organisation concerned, then I would strongly suggest you contact the OTRS queue (see Commons:OTRS), to confirm the Public domain status in a formal manner.
Wikisource takes copyrights seriously, which means that claims of Public Domain status on recent (typically post 1923) works have to be confirmed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi - I may be wrong here and I'm happy to be corrected. This magazine was passed to me as a "historical document" by a member of the organisation's management committee with a specific request that the content be made available on the internet, with the ultimate intention of creating a wikipedia page devoted to the life of Arthur Bowen. This task was felt to be appropriate to be given to me as he is (was) my Father. My understanding, and again I may be wrong, was that the BRA never copyrighted their material because part of their mandate as a charity was, and still is, to provide and distribute information for disabled people. Finally, I understand, and yet again I may be wrong, (but I did research this at length) that material published in 1977 was not automatically copyrighted just by being published, but had to include a copyright notice. Now, I may have missed something, but I have checked every page of the magazine for a copyright notice, and I haven't found one. If you *have* found a copyright notice then, yes, I will remove the document from the internet and I will return to the BRA (now Arthritis Care) to request clarification.
- The UK has not required registration or notice for copyright protection, at least since the 1911 Copyright Act, and probably not even under previous law. To quote enwiki, "The 1911 Act provides that an individual's work is automatically under copyright, by operation of law, as soon as it leaves his/her mind and is embodied in some physical form: be it a novel, a painting, a musical work written in manuscript, or an architectural schematic. This remains the legal position under the Schedules of 1956 Act and of the 1988 Act." (see w:en:Copyright law of the United Kingdom#Qualification for protection) This means that all works of "qualified persons" are copyrighted, whether they 'claim' so or not. Under the 1956 Copyright Act, which was in force at the time of publication, the definition of a qualified person includes "a body incorporated under the laws of any part of the United Kingdom or of another country to which that provision extends." There is no exception made for charities, and the text in the current law is similar. The BRA's works are copyrightable under UK law, and are copyrighted unless they have explicitly and publicaly abandoned that copyright, unless the term has expired. Revent (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I see no reason to argue this point. I will talk to the BRA directly and see if we can get a license to publish this particular magazine on the internet.
- At this point of time, I think it is worthwhile deleting the contributions so far, they can easily be resurrected by a post to WS:CV once an OTRS permission is received. Is that okay with you? Please {{ping}} me when you respond. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)