We'll let some other administrator close this after the week or more of its listing, but I'll reproduce my opinion here from my talk page:
:I think we can't risk it. The NPS has created a derivative work, which may have its own copyright, but it does not affect the protection of the original. We do not know what kind of license the NPS may have had to use the application in preparing their summary, but we do know that those applications are not released into public domain. We wrote them some time ago and their reply is documented in OTRS. I don't have time right now to search the system (which takes for freaking ever now, as I'm sure you know :P), but I know it's in there because I wrote them and put it there myself. :) Unfortunately, their copyright statement is vague: "Information created or owned by the NPS and presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain." [4] If they simply wrote, "Content of this website, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain" then we could presume that they had license to release it. They don't; they specific that it must be "information created or owned by the NPS". In the absence of evidence otherwise, I would assume that anything we find on their website is public domain, but in this case we do have evidence that the "information" was not "created" by the NPS.
Personally, I suspect that some employee of the NPS has used the application document without giving a thought to the copyright status of the original, but we don't have any way of determining it without writing to them. Is it possible to use brief quotes and summary written by us, maybe based on the original instead of the derivative work? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Digging up the OTRS ticket, now that I am back at my home computer. May take some time. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Much concern about PD vs. copyrighted status has to do with Wikipedia using material to directly incorporate into articles without explicit quoting. For example there are many U.S. wp:SHIPS articles formed from DANFS text. And many U.S. courthouse articles formed from, such as Santiago E. Campos United States Courthouse. That includes templated statement {{ GSA building}} to the effect that "Material on this page was initially produced by the U.S. General Services Administration, an agency of the United States government, ..." and stating further that explicit permission was obtained. If material directly incorporated that way is not PD or very similar, and is not clearly attributed, then I agree there is some "risk". Namely to Wikipedia's reputation, for our editors having implicitly claimed credit for work of others (plagiarism) or for our pages being in actual copyright violation, and for then possibly causing others to believe that the material could be copied under CC or GFDL when that should not be relied upon. Many newly arrived Wikipedia editors have wanted to use NRHP nomination document text in that way, to paste in and then mash up. I think previous OTRS inquiries to the NPS were responding to that.
To be clear, the disputed version of Barrio Santa Rosa (Tucson, Arizona) is NOT that. It explicitly quotes from a NPS webpage and gives completely clear attribution of that, including link to the webpage. What risk for wikipedia is in that? I see no risk to Wikipedia's reputation. We are absolutely clearly giving attribution and not claiming credit for wording. The NPS could conceivably have a derivative copyright to the text that it assembled and edited into that form, but that derivative copyright is in the public domain (as work of Federal employees on a Federal website). The NPS clearly believes it has "fair use" of the material in that way, and believes the passages it incorporates from the NRHP nomination document are not too long. Our quoting them is our quoting their assertion of what is fair use. I think it is very subtle to argue that conceivably the NRHP nom doc copyright holder could accept NPS's usage but wish to dispute Wikipedia's usage (in quoted form) as not fair use. Or that the copyright holder would blame wikipedia later for someone else taking material from Wikipedia and using it in some other way. It is too clever to argue that there is any hypothetical risk here.
Why not ask NPS for blanket explicit permission to use their webpages? Well, I wouldn't ask further, as their policy is clear enough, as they have positive disinterest in responding to such questions, and as it is a benefit we have already, now, legally, to use the material. If you ask a lawyer a question they will hedge and not give a clear answer, as apparently happened before, and you could seem to lose the use of the material. As a cover-your-ass type lawyer move, at most I would say we might notify the NPS that we do use material from their webpages where we do not see, there, explicit crediting to another source. (We do scrupulously avoid use of images on NPS pages that state private party credits for those images. And we could tell them they should notify us if they see any particular problems. But to assume we have a burden to look for privately copyrighted materials that the NPS editor might have drawn from, is preposterous. It is quite possible that you could find predecessor documents that DANFS material or U.S. General Services Administration webpages is based upon, too, and you could argue that maybe then a private party could sue them and us for copyvio so we should expunge all DANFS and GSA material from wikipedia because it might not be "safe". But no one, really, is going to sue the GSA or NPS or wikipedia for us explicitly quoting from any of their pages.
I think our quoting from NPS pages that give no restriction is fine. If and when any case comes up of a copyright holder objecting, then we could revisit that. And I would help in a cleanup campaign. To be clear I don't want to incorporate and mash up the NPS text. I just have explicitly quoted from it, in a longish quote that could possibly go beyond fair use if the material was copyrighted. To self-censor in advance, and deny use of long explicit quotes from this pretty clearly fair use / PD material would be the wrong policy to adopt here. -- do ncr am 17:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
We'll let some other administrator close this after the week or more of its listing, but I'll reproduce my opinion here from my talk page:
:I think we can't risk it. The NPS has created a derivative work, which may have its own copyright, but it does not affect the protection of the original. We do not know what kind of license the NPS may have had to use the application in preparing their summary, but we do know that those applications are not released into public domain. We wrote them some time ago and their reply is documented in OTRS. I don't have time right now to search the system (which takes for freaking ever now, as I'm sure you know :P), but I know it's in there because I wrote them and put it there myself. :) Unfortunately, their copyright statement is vague: "Information created or owned by the NPS and presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain." [4] If they simply wrote, "Content of this website, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain" then we could presume that they had license to release it. They don't; they specific that it must be "information created or owned by the NPS". In the absence of evidence otherwise, I would assume that anything we find on their website is public domain, but in this case we do have evidence that the "information" was not "created" by the NPS.
Personally, I suspect that some employee of the NPS has used the application document without giving a thought to the copyright status of the original, but we don't have any way of determining it without writing to them. Is it possible to use brief quotes and summary written by us, maybe based on the original instead of the derivative work? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Digging up the OTRS ticket, now that I am back at my home computer. May take some time. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Much concern about PD vs. copyrighted status has to do with Wikipedia using material to directly incorporate into articles without explicit quoting. For example there are many U.S. wp:SHIPS articles formed from DANFS text. And many U.S. courthouse articles formed from, such as Santiago E. Campos United States Courthouse. That includes templated statement {{ GSA building}} to the effect that "Material on this page was initially produced by the U.S. General Services Administration, an agency of the United States government, ..." and stating further that explicit permission was obtained. If material directly incorporated that way is not PD or very similar, and is not clearly attributed, then I agree there is some "risk". Namely to Wikipedia's reputation, for our editors having implicitly claimed credit for work of others (plagiarism) or for our pages being in actual copyright violation, and for then possibly causing others to believe that the material could be copied under CC or GFDL when that should not be relied upon. Many newly arrived Wikipedia editors have wanted to use NRHP nomination document text in that way, to paste in and then mash up. I think previous OTRS inquiries to the NPS were responding to that.
To be clear, the disputed version of Barrio Santa Rosa (Tucson, Arizona) is NOT that. It explicitly quotes from a NPS webpage and gives completely clear attribution of that, including link to the webpage. What risk for wikipedia is in that? I see no risk to Wikipedia's reputation. We are absolutely clearly giving attribution and not claiming credit for wording. The NPS could conceivably have a derivative copyright to the text that it assembled and edited into that form, but that derivative copyright is in the public domain (as work of Federal employees on a Federal website). The NPS clearly believes it has "fair use" of the material in that way, and believes the passages it incorporates from the NRHP nomination document are not too long. Our quoting them is our quoting their assertion of what is fair use. I think it is very subtle to argue that conceivably the NRHP nom doc copyright holder could accept NPS's usage but wish to dispute Wikipedia's usage (in quoted form) as not fair use. Or that the copyright holder would blame wikipedia later for someone else taking material from Wikipedia and using it in some other way. It is too clever to argue that there is any hypothetical risk here.
Why not ask NPS for blanket explicit permission to use their webpages? Well, I wouldn't ask further, as their policy is clear enough, as they have positive disinterest in responding to such questions, and as it is a benefit we have already, now, legally, to use the material. If you ask a lawyer a question they will hedge and not give a clear answer, as apparently happened before, and you could seem to lose the use of the material. As a cover-your-ass type lawyer move, at most I would say we might notify the NPS that we do use material from their webpages where we do not see, there, explicit crediting to another source. (We do scrupulously avoid use of images on NPS pages that state private party credits for those images. And we could tell them they should notify us if they see any particular problems. But to assume we have a burden to look for privately copyrighted materials that the NPS editor might have drawn from, is preposterous. It is quite possible that you could find predecessor documents that DANFS material or U.S. General Services Administration webpages is based upon, too, and you could argue that maybe then a private party could sue them and us for copyvio so we should expunge all DANFS and GSA material from wikipedia because it might not be "safe". But no one, really, is going to sue the GSA or NPS or wikipedia for us explicitly quoting from any of their pages.
I think our quoting from NPS pages that give no restriction is fine. If and when any case comes up of a copyright holder objecting, then we could revisit that. And I would help in a cleanup campaign. To be clear I don't want to incorporate and mash up the NPS text. I just have explicitly quoted from it, in a longish quote that could possibly go beyond fair use if the material was copyrighted. To self-censor in advance, and deny use of long explicit quotes from this pretty clearly fair use / PD material would be the wrong policy to adopt here. -- do ncr am 17:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)