This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
The public domain status of official government works is sometimes difficult to determine, but keeps coming up on Wikipedia again and again. There are some easy cases: works of the United States federal government, for example, are not protected by copyright and are thus in the public domain. The same does not hold in general for the works of other governments. Determining whether all works, or particular works, of a particular government are in the public domain requires research and possibly even legal advice.
Any thoughts on these new ones, e.g. Moonriddengirl ( talk · contribs)?
DavidinNJ ( talk · contribs) created another NJ template; it seems valid, but see the closed discussion below. I just edited the Commons version. I need to copy over my edits.-- Elvey ( talk) 03:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Sabromowitz ( talk · contribs) created a MD template; it seems invalid. We should delete it?-- Elvey ( talk) 03:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Elvey/Template:PD-MAGov .-- Elvey ( talk) 03:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elvey/Template:PD-MAGov !
Cross-wiki consistency in the naming of {{ PD-laws}} Commons:Template:PD-US-GovEdict, Commons:Template:PD-EdictGov, etc. should be sought.-- Elvey ( talk) 03:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I've been asked to create a template. I'm moving/copying the discussion here, so it's in a more findable place. All my comments in this thread are in italics so it's less challenging to identify who said what. Here is the thread. -- Elvey ( talk) 04:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC) : Hello I need someone to create a PD tag for the Imags of the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture, an institution of the Government of Puerto Rico responsible for the establishment of the cultural policies required in order to preserve, promote, enrich, and convey the cultural values of Puerto Rico. Said images are PD and I have the confirmation of the Pueto Rican government to such respect which I can provide. If you can do it or if you can direct me to the person that has the knowledge to create such a tag, I will appreciate it and provide futher information. Tony the Marine ( talk) 04:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
My main concern was the images of the images and the not the written content used or published by The Institute of Puerto Rican Culture. I knew that images as such are Public Domain, however, to be on the safe side I decided to contact and ask about the image PD status the Secretary of State/Lt. Governor of Puerto Rico, the Honorable Kenneth McClintock, who holds a doctorate in international law and as an authority knows about the matter and is also spokesperson for the People of Puerto Rico. Here I will publish the correspondence between us (He is fluent in English as well as Spainsh and his e-mail was in Englsh as published here).
"Estimado Honorable Lt. Gov. K. McClintock, I know that you are a very busy person and I wouldn't bother you if for not a question that came up. Since you have a doctorate in law, I figured that no one is more qualified to answer my simple question. Are the images of famous Puerto Ricans used by the Puerto Rican Institute of Culture Public Domain? I am almost certain that the institute would not pay for the usage of images of famous Puerto Ricans that they honor in their publications and so on. Could you please inform me? Gracias. Tony Santiago
He responded:
"Tony, The images the IPC uses in its publications, as well as the portraits of Governors and First Ladies (which hang in La Fortaleza---although the Governors', that will hang at the State Department for 2 weeks beginning next Monday), Senate Presidents and House Speakers (which hang at the Capitol), the Secretaries of State photos, which hang at my Department, and so forth, are clearly in the public domain because: (1) nobody is paid for their continuous use, and, (2) the government does not claim payment from anyone from their reproduction and use. I hope this is of help to you. Kenneth D. McClintock; Secretary of State; San Juan, Puerto Rico.
He also responded the following:
" These images were commissioned and paid for by the Government, for public use, with public funds, so they may be reproduced freely. No one has any rights over such images, having sold the images and rights appurtenant to their work to the people of Puerto Rico. KDM"
I will not publish his e-mail address for security reasons, however I have forwarded his e-mail address to "OTRS" in regard to this image File:01 KDM.jpg and if you have access to OTRS, you will be able to verify the interaction between us. (2012 Note by Elvey: It's now File:Kenneth_McClintock_PR.jpg and tagged {{PD-release|author=the {{w|Government of Puerto Rico}}}}.)
If you can create a PD tag for the images (not the written content) of The Insititute of Puerto Rican Culture, not only will I appreciate it, but also the People of Puerto Rico. Thank you.
Tony the Marine (
talk) 22:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Please check out the example of the PD template which I created for the portraits of the Puerto Ricans Governors, First Ladies, Senate Presidents, House Speakers and Military heroes, which has the permit granted by OTRS to the Puerto Rican Government, Workshop. Tony the Marine ( talk) 16:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
NJGov and NCGov
|
---|
Could an admin please restore
|
CAGov
|
---|
Works of the state government of California. TfD debate is archived here. Duk inquired about this matter [4]:
Note: the above is from a few years ago ('06). The following is current ('09): NewsCA Appellate court says "writings of public officials and agencies" available under California’s public records law (CPRA), are generally not subject to copyright( I found that one reporter doesn't know a ruling from a settlement!!) found the court's ruling. I see the judge refers to Microdecisions v Skinner several times! Wow! My reading is that the court is unanimously stating (on p. 35-36) that it interprets the CA constitution to grant the people access to the public record without restrictions, except where the legislature has made an exception. The constitutional wording is quite different, but it seems the court is saying that much like in FL, "writings of public officials and agencies" available under California’s public records law (CPRA), are generally not subject to copyright. The times are a-callin for a {{ PD-CAGov}} resurrection? I just asked the deleter to discuss here. Perhaps we should investigate/wait to see if there's an appeal to the state supreme court?-- Elvey ( talk) 00:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
More info, referencesA record of the government of California that was in any way "involved in the governmental process" and "prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency" or officer, and has been obtained pursuant to the Sunshine Amendment of the Constitution of California, and/or the California Public Records Act (CPRA), which contained no relevant provision(s) for copyright, and is not subject to any other copyright claim, is in the public domain. Per County of Santa Clara v. CFAC, the "CPRA contains no provisions either for copyrighting [this work] or for conditioning its release on an end user or licensing agreement by the requester. The record thus must be disclosed as provided in the CPRA, without any such conditions or limitations." -- Elvey ( talk) 22:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC) (adapted from Template:PD-CAGov, as the commons template is brief and points here for justification) Template tweakingIn Santa Clara, the CA court not only says that "end user restrictions are incompatible with the purposes and operation of the CPRA." It also says that “[W]e find the Florida court’s reasoning persuasive.... ”This mandate overrides a government agency’s ability to claim a copyright in its work unless the legislature has expressly authorized a public records exemption.” (Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, at p. 876.) " I've edited the CAGov template because as written, it did not apply to
File:Cerritos_Veterans_Memorial_Lapel_Pin.JPG, though the law does, so I fixed the template. Surely, the lapel pin was not obtained by someone filing Sunshine Amendment paperwork.
-- Elvey ( talk) 04:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Seems to confuse PD with public record. Seems to be an orphan. Redirect to DI template?-- Elvey ( talk) 00:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they are public domain. The Microdecisions decision put it best: "The copyright act gives the holder the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute a work and to authorize others to do so." "As such, a copyright owner may refuse to provide copies of the work or may charge whatever fee he wants for copies of the work or a license to use the work." The "public records law, on the other hand, requires State and local agencies to make their records available to the public for the cost of reproduction." "This mandate overrides a government agency’s ability to claim a copyright in its work unless the legislature has expressly authorized a public records exemption." Doesn't get any clearer, really. These quotes of the Microdecision were actually taken from County of Santa Clara v. CFAC (pg. 35), which also came to the exact same conclusion. The Montana laws are not substantially different, so either all these public records laws override copyright, or they all don't. The latter is obviously false. If the work doesn't fall under an exception, the state waives copyright, and is therefore under the public domain. Int21h ( talk) 05:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- In a case of first impression, courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other jurisdictions that have previously dealt with similar issues. Source: Legal_precedent#Persuasive_precedent
Copyright puffery
|
---|
PS It's absolutely retarded that at the bottom of this edit page, it says Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites – only public domain resources can be copied without permission. That is utter bullshit. Lots of resources that aren't PD can legally be copied without permission! But that's quite OT. -- Elvey ( talk) 08:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
|
In most cases, products of state and local governments are not PD, so the following templates mostly point to a 'deletable image' template. Exceptions are noted.
Include any new templates in Category:US_State_PD_templates.
This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
The public domain status of official government works is sometimes difficult to determine, but keeps coming up on Wikipedia again and again. There are some easy cases: works of the United States federal government, for example, are not protected by copyright and are thus in the public domain. The same does not hold in general for the works of other governments. Determining whether all works, or particular works, of a particular government are in the public domain requires research and possibly even legal advice.
Any thoughts on these new ones, e.g. Moonriddengirl ( talk · contribs)?
DavidinNJ ( talk · contribs) created another NJ template; it seems valid, but see the closed discussion below. I just edited the Commons version. I need to copy over my edits.-- Elvey ( talk) 03:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Sabromowitz ( talk · contribs) created a MD template; it seems invalid. We should delete it?-- Elvey ( talk) 03:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Elvey/Template:PD-MAGov .-- Elvey ( talk) 03:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elvey/Template:PD-MAGov !
Cross-wiki consistency in the naming of {{ PD-laws}} Commons:Template:PD-US-GovEdict, Commons:Template:PD-EdictGov, etc. should be sought.-- Elvey ( talk) 03:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I've been asked to create a template. I'm moving/copying the discussion here, so it's in a more findable place. All my comments in this thread are in italics so it's less challenging to identify who said what. Here is the thread. -- Elvey ( talk) 04:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC) : Hello I need someone to create a PD tag for the Imags of the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture, an institution of the Government of Puerto Rico responsible for the establishment of the cultural policies required in order to preserve, promote, enrich, and convey the cultural values of Puerto Rico. Said images are PD and I have the confirmation of the Pueto Rican government to such respect which I can provide. If you can do it or if you can direct me to the person that has the knowledge to create such a tag, I will appreciate it and provide futher information. Tony the Marine ( talk) 04:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
My main concern was the images of the images and the not the written content used or published by The Institute of Puerto Rican Culture. I knew that images as such are Public Domain, however, to be on the safe side I decided to contact and ask about the image PD status the Secretary of State/Lt. Governor of Puerto Rico, the Honorable Kenneth McClintock, who holds a doctorate in international law and as an authority knows about the matter and is also spokesperson for the People of Puerto Rico. Here I will publish the correspondence between us (He is fluent in English as well as Spainsh and his e-mail was in Englsh as published here).
"Estimado Honorable Lt. Gov. K. McClintock, I know that you are a very busy person and I wouldn't bother you if for not a question that came up. Since you have a doctorate in law, I figured that no one is more qualified to answer my simple question. Are the images of famous Puerto Ricans used by the Puerto Rican Institute of Culture Public Domain? I am almost certain that the institute would not pay for the usage of images of famous Puerto Ricans that they honor in their publications and so on. Could you please inform me? Gracias. Tony Santiago
He responded:
"Tony, The images the IPC uses in its publications, as well as the portraits of Governors and First Ladies (which hang in La Fortaleza---although the Governors', that will hang at the State Department for 2 weeks beginning next Monday), Senate Presidents and House Speakers (which hang at the Capitol), the Secretaries of State photos, which hang at my Department, and so forth, are clearly in the public domain because: (1) nobody is paid for their continuous use, and, (2) the government does not claim payment from anyone from their reproduction and use. I hope this is of help to you. Kenneth D. McClintock; Secretary of State; San Juan, Puerto Rico.
He also responded the following:
" These images were commissioned and paid for by the Government, for public use, with public funds, so they may be reproduced freely. No one has any rights over such images, having sold the images and rights appurtenant to their work to the people of Puerto Rico. KDM"
I will not publish his e-mail address for security reasons, however I have forwarded his e-mail address to "OTRS" in regard to this image File:01 KDM.jpg and if you have access to OTRS, you will be able to verify the interaction between us. (2012 Note by Elvey: It's now File:Kenneth_McClintock_PR.jpg and tagged {{PD-release|author=the {{w|Government of Puerto Rico}}}}.)
If you can create a PD tag for the images (not the written content) of The Insititute of Puerto Rican Culture, not only will I appreciate it, but also the People of Puerto Rico. Thank you.
Tony the Marine (
talk) 22:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Please check out the example of the PD template which I created for the portraits of the Puerto Ricans Governors, First Ladies, Senate Presidents, House Speakers and Military heroes, which has the permit granted by OTRS to the Puerto Rican Government, Workshop. Tony the Marine ( talk) 16:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
NJGov and NCGov
|
---|
Could an admin please restore
|
CAGov
|
---|
Works of the state government of California. TfD debate is archived here. Duk inquired about this matter [4]:
Note: the above is from a few years ago ('06). The following is current ('09): NewsCA Appellate court says "writings of public officials and agencies" available under California’s public records law (CPRA), are generally not subject to copyright( I found that one reporter doesn't know a ruling from a settlement!!) found the court's ruling. I see the judge refers to Microdecisions v Skinner several times! Wow! My reading is that the court is unanimously stating (on p. 35-36) that it interprets the CA constitution to grant the people access to the public record without restrictions, except where the legislature has made an exception. The constitutional wording is quite different, but it seems the court is saying that much like in FL, "writings of public officials and agencies" available under California’s public records law (CPRA), are generally not subject to copyright. The times are a-callin for a {{ PD-CAGov}} resurrection? I just asked the deleter to discuss here. Perhaps we should investigate/wait to see if there's an appeal to the state supreme court?-- Elvey ( talk) 00:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
More info, referencesA record of the government of California that was in any way "involved in the governmental process" and "prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency" or officer, and has been obtained pursuant to the Sunshine Amendment of the Constitution of California, and/or the California Public Records Act (CPRA), which contained no relevant provision(s) for copyright, and is not subject to any other copyright claim, is in the public domain. Per County of Santa Clara v. CFAC, the "CPRA contains no provisions either for copyrighting [this work] or for conditioning its release on an end user or licensing agreement by the requester. The record thus must be disclosed as provided in the CPRA, without any such conditions or limitations." -- Elvey ( talk) 22:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC) (adapted from Template:PD-CAGov, as the commons template is brief and points here for justification) Template tweakingIn Santa Clara, the CA court not only says that "end user restrictions are incompatible with the purposes and operation of the CPRA." It also says that “[W]e find the Florida court’s reasoning persuasive.... ”This mandate overrides a government agency’s ability to claim a copyright in its work unless the legislature has expressly authorized a public records exemption.” (Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, at p. 876.) " I've edited the CAGov template because as written, it did not apply to
File:Cerritos_Veterans_Memorial_Lapel_Pin.JPG, though the law does, so I fixed the template. Surely, the lapel pin was not obtained by someone filing Sunshine Amendment paperwork.
-- Elvey ( talk) 04:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Seems to confuse PD with public record. Seems to be an orphan. Redirect to DI template?-- Elvey ( talk) 00:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they are public domain. The Microdecisions decision put it best: "The copyright act gives the holder the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute a work and to authorize others to do so." "As such, a copyright owner may refuse to provide copies of the work or may charge whatever fee he wants for copies of the work or a license to use the work." The "public records law, on the other hand, requires State and local agencies to make their records available to the public for the cost of reproduction." "This mandate overrides a government agency’s ability to claim a copyright in its work unless the legislature has expressly authorized a public records exemption." Doesn't get any clearer, really. These quotes of the Microdecision were actually taken from County of Santa Clara v. CFAC (pg. 35), which also came to the exact same conclusion. The Montana laws are not substantially different, so either all these public records laws override copyright, or they all don't. The latter is obviously false. If the work doesn't fall under an exception, the state waives copyright, and is therefore under the public domain. Int21h ( talk) 05:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- In a case of first impression, courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other jurisdictions that have previously dealt with similar issues. Source: Legal_precedent#Persuasive_precedent
Copyright puffery
|
---|
PS It's absolutely retarded that at the bottom of this edit page, it says Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites – only public domain resources can be copied without permission. That is utter bullshit. Lots of resources that aren't PD can legally be copied without permission! But that's quite OT. -- Elvey ( talk) 08:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
|
In most cases, products of state and local governments are not PD, so the following templates mostly point to a 'deletable image' template. Exceptions are noted.
Include any new templates in Category:US_State_PD_templates.