Talk:Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:18, 30 May 2013 editTJRC (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers63,480 editsm →Works Made for Hire for the US state Governments etc ← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:31, 6 June 2013 edit undoElvey (talk \| contribs)9,497 edits Redo last edit with some updating.Next edit →
Line 202:		Line 202:
	== Works Made for Hire for the US state Governments etc ==		== Works Made for Hire for the US state Governments etc ==
	TJRC, you dispute that "The copyrightability of state and municipal government works is not determined by the federal government. A few states and their local governments cannot hold copyright in most of their works, but most can." and claim that "copyright is determined exclusively by federal law, not state law"! But the linked page supports me not you, as does , which is more clear.		TJRC, you dispute that "The copyrightability of state and municipal government works is not determined by the federal government. A few states and their local governments cannot hold copyright in most of their works, but most can." and claim that "copyright is determined exclusively by federal law, not state law"! But the linked page supports me not you, as does , which is more clear.
	In particular, Florida's Constitution and its statutes do not permit public records to be copyrighted unless the (state) legislature specifically states they can be. OTOH, works made by NY can be copyrighted, according to NY law. Please put back what you removed or something like it. In the mean time, I'll blank the section, leaving just the link to the main page. --] (]) 05:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC):Oh, and your reverting seems careless, TJRC. --] (]) 06:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)		In particular, Florida's Constitution and its statutes do not permit public records to be copyrighted unless the (state) legislature specifically states they can be. OTOH, works made by NY can be copyrighted, according to NY law. Please put back what you removed or something like it. In the mean time, I'll blank the section, leaving just the link to the main page. --] (]) 05:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
			:Oh, and your reverting seems careless, TJRC. --] (]) 06:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

	:Elvey, you're removing content that is well-sourced and citing the U.S. Copyright Office as authority. You're adding unsourced and incorrect statements that copyright is determined by state law, and that has not been the case for 35 years. In the United States, copyright is (with the exception of pre-1972 sound recordings), exclusively federal law. To the extent any state law purports to change copyright law, that is preempted by section 301.		:Elvey, you're removing content that is well-sourced and citing the U.S. Copyright Office as authority. You're adding unsourced and incorrect statements that copyright is determined by state law, and that has not been the case for 35 years. In the United States, copyright is (with the exception of pre-1972 sound recordings), exclusively federal law. To the extent any state law purports to change copyright law, that is preempted by section 301.
Line 213:		Line 214:

	:If you want to include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law, I have no objection to that; but you should not misstate the law as you've been doing.		:If you want to include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law, I have no objection to that; but you should not misstate the law as you've been doing.
			::'''Your central point is valid''', but wow, there are a lot of wild accusations there too! A lot of straw men, e.g. of course "my" template is not a ]; no template is (and perhaps with a few irrelevant exceptions, no wikipedia page is). But it does cite and reference reliable sources that back me up.

			::You've provided no evidence that there is only one correct way to understand it, though the way you have outlined - treating the state as copyright owner like any other - seems to be a valid way of seeing it. But how 'bout we simply '''move forward''', rather than argue, as we both think it's fine to just
			:::"include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law"!

			::Cool? How 'bout we copy some text and sources from ]? --] (]) 21:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC) (restored 08:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC))

			:With respect to , it is incorrect, and reverting it is appropriate. Your text is "The non-copyright rule ... does apply to 'organized territories' under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government." As the says, "Works of the governments of the 'organized territories' under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government are acceptable for registration under the rule." That is, the non-copyright rule '''does not''' apply to organized territories; their works are accepted for copyright registration.

			::Oops. (See below.)

			::"non-copyright rule" is a what? Google . A made-up term? With what shall we replace it?--] (]) 21:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC) (restored 08:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC))

	:With respect to , it is incorrect, and reverting it is appropriate. Your text is "The non-copyright rule ... does apply to 'organized territories' under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government." As the says, "Works of the governments of the 'organized territories' under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government are acceptable for registration under the rule." That is, the non-copyright rule '''does not''' apply to organized territories; their works are accepted for copyright registration. (add: see more below)		:With respect to , it is incorrect, and reverting it is appropriate. Your text is "The non-copyright rule ... does apply to 'organized territories' under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government." As the says, "Works of the governments of the 'organized territories' under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government are acceptable for registration under the rule." That is, the non-copyright rule '''does not''' apply to organized territories; their works are accepted for copyright registration. (add: see more below)
Line 219:		Line 232:

	::With respect to the organized territories, there's a page-break in the Compendium that makes it look like the sentence ends where ai quoted it above, but it actually goes on: "Works of the governments of the 'organized territories' under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government are acceptable for registration under the rule <u>of doubt.</u>" What this means is that the CO is not taking a position on whether section 105 applies to "organized territories"; it will accept the registration, but leave to the courts a determination of whether section 105 precludes copyrights. For unorganized territories, it goes on: "Works of the governments of other territorial areas under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government are considered to be U.S. Government works." This is probably a wrinkle worth adding. ] (]) 20:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC) (add: I've now that, with appropriate citations.) ] (]) 23:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)		::With respect to the organized territories, there's a page-break in the Compendium that makes it look like the sentence ends where ai quoted it above, but it actually goes on: "Works of the governments of the 'organized territories' under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government are acceptable for registration under the rule <u>of doubt.</u>" What this means is that the CO is not taking a position on whether section 105 applies to "organized territories"; it will accept the registration, but leave to the courts a determination of whether section 105 precludes copyrights. For unorganized territories, it goes on: "Works of the governments of other territorial areas under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government are considered to be U.S. Government works." This is probably a wrinkle worth adding. ] (]) 20:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC) (add: I've now that, with appropriate citations.) ] (]) 23:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


			::It seems you were skimming/rushing, but finally read 206.02e '''IN FULL''' and realized you chopped off "of doubt".

			::You seem to have missed the rest of it at first:

			:::"Works of the governments of other territorial areas under the jurisdiction of the u.s. Government are considered to be u.s. Government works."

			::Do you concede that these U.S. Government works are NOT accepted for copyright registration?

			::Oops: I seem to have missed the ] vs ] (e.g. ]), so ] was indeed wrong. Yes, there should be a wrinkle for each.

			::Lastly: You seem to have been skimming/rushing as you didn't address my edit summaries which state that I moved the content to ]; I didn't simply delete it! Did you think I had? --] (]) 21:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC) (restored 08:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC))

Revision as of 08:31, 6 June 2013

United States Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Layers

I think it would be best to layer the sections a little more. The article seems to just contain a loosly related list. I'm not sure how exactly I would fix it, but I figured it would best be mentioned.

Anthony intially used this page as a redirect, now it is a disambiguation page to the page he wanted it redirtected to. He obviously just wants to pick a fight. GrazingshipIV 03:05, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Heh, you are the one picking the fight. First you blanked the page, now you're trying to remove the examples. All of this with no explanation whatsoever. anthony (see warning) 03:07, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

not even close you know that you have no clue on how to create a page for this it's textbook disambiguation. Now it will go to the page you orginally wanted it to. GrazingshipIV 03:08, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

No Domestic Copyright Does Not Mean No International Copyright

(I made a comment substantially similar to this originally on http://commons.wikimedia.org/Template_talk:PD-USGov, but I guess it belongs in here--I'll try to clean it up to make it more understandable...)

There's a pretty fundamental problem with the way U.S. Government copyrights are being characterized here.

The problem is that 17 U.S.C. sec. 105 applies domestically, but under TRIPs, Berne and so forth, copyrights are entitled to national treatment. That means that 17 U.S.C. sec. 105 has no legal effect abroad, and the protection offered internationally under the conventions only places copyrights on par with homegrown copyrights, meaning that the protection offered to U.S. government coprights internationally is not protection "under this title," in the words of 105.

Long story short: while conventionally the U.S. has not asserted international copyright ownership, it IS NOT TRUE that (1) U.S. government works are in the public domain (because the statute doesn't purport to release it into the public domain, but merely denies domestic protection under U.S. law, which has no effect internationally because of the way the agreements have been written) or that (2) removing protection of U.S. copyright law has any effect internationally (because the domestic treatment standard removes the international effect of what is being used as the basis for the assertion).

There's precedent for this, too, and calling the Copyright Office should bring more details on it, but Japan called and asked for special permission to reprint the Starr Report. Although the Office found the question somewhat baffling (because they hadn't ever bothered to parse this out themselves until Japan's lawyers asked them to), they offered special, one-time permission to reprint the Starr report. In effect, they pulled something like a "judicial review"-style slight-of-hand trick and asserted the substance of what I'm articulating above.

The bottom line is the page is fundamentally wrong from the technical legal standpoint. Is the U.S. government likely to assert the copyrights it has internationally? No. Have they indicated they reserve the right to do so? Yes. Is Wikimedia's characterization misleading? Yes. I really can't tell the community how it should feel about this, but the bottom line is that Wikimedia's "Government Work" rights box is plain wrong as to international applicability. Junkmale 03:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the entire discussion above is fundamentally wrong. International copyright agreements apply only if the material is copyrightable in its country of origin; U.S. government documents produced in the U.S. are not copyrightable (the law in question is part of the U.S. copyright law), so they are in the public domain in the U.S., and thus internationally as well. (Under TRIPS and similar agreements, the U.S. has now essentially "revoked" public-domain status of works first published outside the U.S. that are still under copyright where first published but had lost copyright here, usually due to lack of renewal; thus other nations are bound to honor the copyright law of the country of origin. However, this does not apply to non-copyright restrictions such as the "letters patent" which protect the King James Bible in the UK, but not in the U.S. or internationally.) Japan's asking for reprint permission for the Starr Report was itself out of an abundance of caution, as most other English-speaking countries DO copyright their government documents; for example, see Crown copyright (for most Commonwealth realms including the UK, Canada, Australia & New Zealand) and Parliamentary copyright (a modern variant specifically for the UK Parliament). Please note that non-U.S. government documents subject to copyright in their country of origin are likewise protected in the U.S.; the statute in question specifically applies only to the U.S. government. (15 July 2006) 70.232.95.4 07:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the status is somewhat unclear, and would probably have to be tested in court for a definitive answer. The Berne Convention requires signatory countries to 'protect the copyright on works of authors from other countries in the same way it protects the copyright of its own nationals' - in other words, apply the national standard (subject to other requirements to establish more uniform regimes. There are minimum time periods that are set (e.g. life plus 50 years in most cases), but these can be extended by national laws.

On the other hand 'unless legislation provides otherwise, the copyright term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work' - it could be urgued that US Government works have a copyright term of zero years, and thus don't get protection - although personally I think that's unlikely.

82.153.96.176 22:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely a zero year copyright term is exactly the same thing as no copyright term? And to cite the "protect the copyright" wording assumes the consequent - you can't argue that a copyright exists by starting from the assumption that it exists!—greenrd (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I just asked someone working on international copyright law. The key point is that you always have to apply the law of the country where you want to distribute the work (principle of national treatment). So, while there is no copyright on NASA images in the US, it is still protected by the respective laws in any country that has signed the Berne convention or a similar international treaty. Hweimer (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the rule of shorter terms applies to this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.91.173 (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Protected

I protected this page on a IRC request. Please resolve your difference on the talk page, and I or someone else can unprotect it. Thanks, Dori | Talk 03:10, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Dori well the ball is really in Anthony's court, he wanted to redirect now he wants a different page, ultimately he wants attention. GrazingshipIV 03:14, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

"Disambiguation in Misplaced Pages is the process of resolving the conflict that occurs when articles about two or more different topics have the same natural title." "Disambiguation pages serve a single purpose: To let the reader choose between different pages that might reside under the same title." If a page is created on the work of the United States Government, i.e., the activities of the United States Government, then a primary topic disambiguation, with a link to the activities page would be appropriate (clearly this would be a case of primary topic disambiguation, see google). Otherwise, this falls under "See Also", not disambiguation. anthony (see warning) 03:53, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anthony we have discussed all this already you are blinded by your own point of view the point of having a link is for people who got there by mistake. You intially wanted a redirect and now refuse to compromise. There needs to be a link to United States government for people who to the page looking for how the government works. You include one in he current protected version, why be difficult just to be difficult? GrazingshipIV 04:12, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

You're both aware of the 3 revert guideline and quickpolls, so don't start reverting as soon as I unprotect. Start a poll if you can't agree, or something. Dori | Talk 14:34, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in the Misplaced Pages namespace?

Shouldn't it belong there? I don't think it's encyclopaedic, and it's more-or-less used to describe WP policy. Maybe it even belongs in the meta-wiki? splintax 09:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree. Nimur 18:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

In the opening paragraph it is written: "For example, the Central Intelligence Agency logo cannot be used deceptively without permission...». Is that wording correct and if so does it mean that the CIA logo can in effect be used deceptively with appropriate permission ? If not, I suggest re-writing this way: «For example, the Central Intelligence Agency logo cannot be used without permission...».

Question

If a picture appears in a US Government Internet site, will it be defined as a Work of the United States Government even if the painter/photographer doesnt belong to the government? For example pictures from the National Portrait Gallery (belongs to the Smithsonian Institution which is administered and funded by the government of the United States)? (81.235.166.78 11:03, 30 June 2006)

Certainly not. Possession, display or distribution of copies or derivative works has nothing to do with ownership of the copyright, and ONLY works authored by a U.S. government officer or employee can be Works of the U.S. Govt. There may be a technical question of who made the collective work in which someone may claim very limited rights (e.g., selection, organization, indexing), or there could be statutory or implied licenses in certain administrative works submitted to the U.S. (e.g., patent applications, federal court filings, SEC filings, etc); but the ownership (or existence) of copyright in the underlying work (if any) is unaffected, and the right to its benefits typically belongs to someone else. Lupinelawyer 15:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

Stars and Stripes

I posted a question about copyright status at the Stars and Stripes (newspaper) article. However, I doubt many wikipedia editors with significant understanding of intellectual property intricacies frequent that talk page, so I'm posting a link here. Please leave any comments on that talk page! Thanks, Nimur 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)

--Timeshifter 17:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC). Are Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports in the public domain? Since BJS is a federal agency I assume that one can freely copy and post parts of this report?: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pjim05.pdf

It is linked from this page: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/pjim05.htm

Table 1 from the BJS pdf report is on this page: http://gallery.marihemp.com/charts

Direct link to Table 1: http://gallery.marihemp.com/charts/USA_BJS_Bulletin_NCJ213133

I assume it is OK to copy and paste the tables from BJS reports to web pages, wikipedia, etc.. So I did. Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:USA_BJS_Bulletin_NCJ213133.gif --Timeshifter 18:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Bureau of Printing, Manila

Hi, just wanted to ask a question (and maybe it should be noted down in the article itself. Are works published by the "Bureau of Printing in Manila" (circa pre-1945) considered works of the US Government? The Philippines was under American control from 1898 all the way to the end of World War II so I'm wondering if it is.

The reason why I'm asking is that I have access to a lot of monographs that were published by the Bureau circa 1920's and I'd like to upload the images/diagrams to WP if possible. Shrumster 06:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Works donated to the Library of Congress.

This photograph was donated by the artist's estate in 1966 with a 20-year publication restriction.

I want to use the image of Beni Montresor. The LOC now claims the image is in public domain.

Rights and Restrictions

As a publicly supported institution the Library generally does not own rights to material in its collections. Therefore, it does not charge permission fees for use of such material and cannot give or deny permission to publish or otherwise distribute material in its collections.

Summary: Donor restrictions expired in 1986 (see below for amplification). However, privacy and publicity rights may apply.

Access: Permitted; subject to P&P policy on serving originals.

Reproduction (photocopying, hand-held camera copying, photoduplication and other forms of copying allowed by "fair use"): Permitted; subject to P&P policy on copying, which prohibits photocopying of the original photographs in this collection.

Publication and other forms of distribution: Per the instrument of gift, "for a period of 20 years from the date of this Instrument , none of the photographs contained in said collection may be sold, reproduced, published or given away in any form whatsoever except with my express permission in writing." This restriction expired in 1986. In 1998 the Library’s Publishing Office was contacted by Bruce Kellner, Successor Trustee for the Van Vechten estate, who disputes Mr. Mauriber’s authority in executing the Instrument of Gift. Upon review of the relevant materials, the Library continues to believe that the photographs are in the public domain. However, patrons are advised that Mr. Kellner has expressed his concern that use of Van Vechten’s photographs "preserve the integrity" of his work, i.e, that photographs not be colorized or cropped, and that proper credit is given to the photographer. Privacy and publicity rights may apply.

Credit Line: Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Carl Van Vechten Collection,

Misplaced Pages dose not have a copyright tag that matched this situation exactly. Any ideas? --Knulclunk 15:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind! I found the correct tag at WikkiCommons. All of Van Vechten pictures donated to the LOC are Public Domain. --Knulclunk 15:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Copy editing

I am copy editing this page as it has been listed since January 2007 --Careless hx 18:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Copy editing complete. Article needs additional cleanup and citation by someone more knowledgable than me, however I will remove the copyedit tag. --carelesshx _talk 00:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. Army Institute of Heraldry

TITLE 18 USC 33, Section 704 governs as follows:

Sec. 704. Military medals or decorations

(a) In General. - Whoever knowingly wears, manufactures, or sells any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, or the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration or medal, or any colorable imitation thereof, except when authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

see comment in article - feel this section may be incorrect, need citation of correct law --Careless hx 18:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

NIST Standard copyrights

I think this page should mention the exception to copyright law created by the Standard Reference Data Act that allows the US Dept of Commerce to hold copyrights on works regarding standards, which is why many NIST standards have copyrights held by the government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.133.112 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I just happened to have added this. TJRC (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

are all images on domains ending in .gov federal copyright

The article business.gov uses an image from www.business.gov, but I am not certain that is not a contracter as it states it is _managed_ by the SBA, but how easy is it to get a .gov extension - maybe contractors are given them - don't know ! The question really is if it's got a .gov domain name is it covered by this licenceLeeVJ (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not! The Government posts many things on their websites to which they only have permissions. You have to know that it was in fact created by the government. BTW, this isn't a license, it's a lack of copyright altogether, when the work is created by the US Government.--Doug. 05:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, many .gov sites are actually US state government websites. .mil websites belong exclusively to the US Department of Defense (though some may be used by contractors or the National Guard); however, they may contain many images that were not created by the United States government and many images that were created by employees or officers of the United States government but outside the territory of the United States; a point that I have rarely seen discussed here but which inserts another layer of gray to what too many people think is black and white.--Doug. 08:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

the language of the statute implies no geographical restriction

I removed

However, the language of the statute implies no geographical restriction on its denial of copyright protection to U.S. government works as it says, "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government…."<ref>{{USC|17|105}}</ref>

from the article, and someone without saying so in the edit summary reverted it. It's not properly cited, as we don't cite primary sources. And it's wrong; it says "copyright protection under this title", but this title only applies to the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Kill it. It's very clear that "this Title" refers to Title I of the 94th Congress's S. 22/H.R. 2233 (which was eventually enacted as the 1976 Copyright Act); and a reference to copyright under "this Title" is not a reference to any non-U.S. law. So, the ~~comment above~~ sentence you quote, to the extent that it is trying to counter the prior passage (as it begins "However...") is wrong. But in any event, more than wrong, it's someone's original interpretation of the statute; it's WP:OR and has no place in the article. The preceding sentence is sufficiently clear without it; and the reference it points to is unambiguous.

If you really want to make the point, House Report No. 94-1476 says unambiguously

The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. Works of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted. There are no valid policy reasons for denying such protection to United States Government works in foreign countries, or for precluding the Government from making licenses for the use of its works abroad.

TJRC (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've made the edit. TJRC (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if no protection in the country of origin it means - no protection in any country that do apply the "rule of the shorter term" that's the point --RussianTrooper (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No. First, you're confusing two distinct things. You're confusing the concept of whether a particular work falls within the scope of copyright with the concept of the term of a work that is subject to copyright. Second, and more importantly for Misplaced Pages purposes, your interpretation here is your own original research, and Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish it. Now, if you have a reliable source that makes this claim -- for example, a law review article -- and it's not a fringe view, it can be included with appropriate citation to that source. TJRC (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Works Made for Hire for the US Government

§ 201 (b) Works Made for Hire. — In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.

-US Copyright Statute

So, I'm reading a NASA-hosted and funded Law Review article, Copyright in Government Works and it reviews legislative and case history and goes into some detail as to situations where Works Made for Hire for the US Government under the statute are not subject to copyright even if author was not an "employee" or "officer". The author notes that the work made for hire "expression includes both employees and independent contractors on special order or commission".

Also, bespoke software written for the USG is "unlimited rights data," NOT "computer software developed at private expense and that is a trade secret". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs) 28 May 2013

I think that John Tresansky, the author of this law review article, is reading the House Report 94-1476 a little carelessly. Here's what the report actually says:

Although the wording of the definition of “work of the United States Government” differs somewhat from that of the definition of “work made for hire,” the concepts are intended to be construed in the same way.

But here's how Trensansky interprets it:

Although the definition of “work of the United States Government” differs somewhat from that of the definition of “work made for hire,” the concepts are intended to be construed in the same way.

The Report is talking about specific wording in the definitions, not the entire definitions. The text that follows in the Report makes clear that the part of the definition being discussed is the part that is common to both definitions: "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties" in "work of the United States Government"; and "prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment" in "work made for hire." As you can see in the actual report, after that discussion it continues with the issue of contractors, and states that the WotUSG does not parallel WMFH:

"A more difficult and far-reaching problem is whether the definition should be broadened to prohibit copyright in works prepared under U.S. Government contract or grant.... The bill deliberately avoids making any sort of outright, unqualified prohibition against copyright in works prepared under Government contractor grant." (There's more, but that gets the gist.)

Tresansky's article is interesting, but the only real bit it authoritatively discusses is whether a work is one that is "part of that person’s official duties" (analog to "within the scope of his or her employment"). His basic thesis is that a work needs to be within the scope of employment to qualify as a WotUSG; and that's not all that controversial. He gives a couple examples of cases where the work in question was held not to be within the scope (and more where it was held to be within the scope). He's basically arguing (as a government employee, quelle surprise) that some works are outside the scope of employment and that government employees may have more rights to assert copyright than generally believed. He does a lot of hand-waving and arguing by analogy to patent cases (which is a very imperfect analogy, given that there is no equivalent prohibition on the U.S. government obtaining patents) to make his case.

I agree with your analysis.--Elvey (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Elvey, I note that you added a {{dubious}} tag in the passage on the FAR general data rights clause. Is this discussion related to that? Because that passage is not an issue of what the statute says, as discussed in the Tresansky article; it's an issue of what the clause incorporated in the government-contractor agreement says. TJRC (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I said:

Also, bespoke software written for the USG is "unlimited rights data," NOT "computer software developed at private expense and that is a trade secret", and was referring to the clause in the FAR. Separate issue. I can make an article edit to more clearly show what I think is in error, by fixing it. Done. --Elvey (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Works Made for Hire for the US state Governments etc

TJRC, you dispute that "The copyrightability of state and municipal government works is not determined by the federal government. A few states and their local governments cannot hold copyright in most of their works, but most can." and claim that "copyright is determined exclusively by federal law, not state law"! But the linked page supports me not you, as does PD-FLGov, which is more clear. In particular, Florida's Constitution and its statutes do not permit public records to be copyrighted unless the (state) legislature specifically states they can be. OTOH, works made by NY can be copyrighted, according to NY law. Please put back what you removed or something like it. In the mean time, I'll blank the section, leaving just the link to the main page. --Elvey (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and your reverting this seems careless, TJRC. --Elvey (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Elvey, you're removing content that is well-sourced and citing the U.S. Copyright Office as authority. You're adding unsourced and incorrect statements that copyright is determined by state law, and that has not been the case for 35 years. In the United States, copyright is (with the exception of pre-1972 sound recordings), exclusively federal law. To the extent any state law purports to change copyright law, that is preempted by section 301.

Your template is not a source. I think you're misunderstanding it in any event. Here's the correct way to understand it. Federal law governs copyright. Under federal law, works of the United States government are not subject to copyright under section 105. The Section 105 limitation is exclusive to the federal government, and does not apply to state governments.

A state's works (subject to certain exceptions, e.g. edicts of government) are subject to copyright. A state, like any other copyright owner, can choose to do what it wishes with its copyrights; including deciding to assert them or deciding to abandon them. Florida has largely apparently chosen to abandon its copyrights.

However that is no different than you, as a copyright owner, deciding to abandon your copyrights. Regardless, under U.S. copyright law, those works are subject to copyright, and the edits you are making are extremely misleading in suggesting that they are not.

If you want to include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law, I have no objection to that; but you should not misstate the law as you've been doing.

Your central point is valid, but wow, there are a lot of wild accusations there too! A lot of straw men, e.g. of course "my" template is not a WP:RS; no template is (and perhaps with a few irrelevant exceptions, no wikipedia page is). But it does cite and reference reliable sources that back me up.

You've provided no evidence that there is only one correct way to understand it, though the way you have outlined - treating the state as copyright owner like any other - seems to be a valid way of seeing it. But how 'bout we simply move forward, rather than argue, as we both think it's fine to just

"include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law"!

Cool? How 'bout we copy some text and sources from Copyright status of work by the Florida government? --Elvey (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC) (restored 08:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC))

With respect to this edit, it is incorrect, and reverting it is appropriate. Your text is "The non-copyright rule ... does apply to 'organized territories' under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government." As the Copyright Office document cited says, "Works of the governments of the 'organized territories' under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government are acceptable for registration under the rule." That is, the non-copyright rule does not apply to organized territories; their works are accepted for copyright registration.

Oops. (See below.)

"non-copyright rule" is a what? Google doesn't know. A made-up term? With what shall we replace it?--Elvey (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC) (restored 08:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC))

I'm reinstating the long-standing text. Not only is it correct, but under WP:BRD, you have been bold but been reverted, and it is now up to you to make your case via discussion. TJRC (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

With respect to the organized territories, there's a page-break in the Compendium that makes it look like the sentence ends where ai quoted it above, but it actually goes on: "Works of the governments of the 'organized territories' under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government are acceptable for registration under the rule of doubt." What this means is that the CO is not taking a position on whether section 105 applies to "organized territories"; it will accept the registration, but leave to the courts a determination of whether section 105 precludes copyrights. For unorganized territories, it goes on: "Works of the governments of other territorial areas under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government are considered to be U.S. Government works." This is probably a wrinkle worth adding. TJRC (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC) (add: I've now added that, with appropriate citations.) TJRC (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems you were skimming/rushing, but finally read 206.02e IN FULL and realized you chopped off "of doubt".

You seem to have missed the rest of it at first:

"Works of the governments of other territorial areas under the jurisdiction of the u.s. Government are considered to be u.s. Government works."

Do you concede that these U.S. Government works are NOT accepted for copyright registration?

Oops: I seem to have missed the organized vs unorganized territory (e.g. American Samoa), so was indeed wrong. Yes, there should be a wrinkle for each.

Lastly: You seem to have been skimming/rushing as you didn't address my edit summaries which state that I moved the content to Copyright status of work by U.S. state governments; I didn't simply delete it! Did you think I had? --Elvey (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC) (restored 08:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC))

Categories: