Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

User talk:Elvey/Template:PD-MAGov

< User talk:Elvey

The government of Mass. is making clearly bogus copyright claims in its Terms of UseEdit currently states, "However, some of the public record posted on the Commonwealth's websites is also copyrighted material (for example, regulations based on technical codes developed and copyrighted by private organizations)." The parenthetical is most certainly untrue. Once "technical codes developed and copyrighted by private organizations" become regulations, their copyright protections are lost. See EN:Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l, Inc. and File:Veeck v Southern Building Code Congress Intl.pdf. Excerpt from summary : "The court held that as law, the model codes enter the public domain and are not subject to the copyright holder's exclusive prerogatives. As model codes, however, the court concluded that the organization's works retain their protected status."

--Elvey (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

{{PD-INGov}} and {{PD-TXGov}}? - Iowa Indiana and TexasEdit suggests {{PD-INGov}} and {{PD-TXGov}} may well be appropriate.--Elvey (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing about Iowa in the linked page. Most if not all Texas works are copyrighted; the main point of the discussion linked is that copyright cannot be used as a reason not to disclose records in response to a freedom of information request.
A very important thing to remember when trying to figure out government copyrights is that w:freedom of information legislation does not eliminate copyright, it simply gives a limited right to duplicate otherwise-protected works. In particular, FOI laws do not provide the right to create derivative works of government works. --Carnildo (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I meant Indiana; the authors of the linked article say that it's like Florida.
I guess this was among the topical sentences evading your keen eye: "It is worth mentioning Texas as a state where the law may require statutory authorization in order to copyright state documents. Although the statute does not explicitly state such as a requirement, it can be inferred from an attorney general opinion." (emphasis mine) You really think I or the authors of the linked article don't know the difference between public record and public domain? Or are you commenting on this page without having read ? Who says "Most if not all Texas works are copyrighted" other than you?--Elvey (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
On the subject of Texas, from the article:
"Texas has several sections throughout its codes that refer to the authority of agencies to hold and enforce copyrights on their works. An exhaustive list of relevant statutes would be restrictively lengthy, but some agencies that have explicit authority under Texas law are the Department of Health, State Preservation Board, Water Development Board, Department of Motor Vehicles, and county governments."
An attorney general's statement on the subject is useful, but it's not definitive in the way that a statute or a court ruling is. An opinion as indirect as "[a]n earlier footnote in the opinion seems to imply..." is considerably less so. The authorizations for the Department of Health, the DMV, and the county governments cover a good portion of the works from Texas, and if the AG's opinion is wrong, then all works (apart from laws and regulations) are copyrighted.
On the subject of Indiana, the article is pretty clear. It's just a matter of tracking down what they mean by a "public record" and working up a suitable template.
More at on Indiana.--Elvey (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
On the subject of Massachusetts, the bogus claims seem to be adequately handled by Template:PD-EdictGov and Template:PD-US-Codes-and-Standards-as-Statutory-Law. --Carnildo (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Again please answer my question: Who says "Most if not all Texas works are copyrighted" other than you, yet again with a disruptive w:Argument from authority? You say 'n quote a bunch that doesn't answer the question at all. A list of agencies w/statutory authorization merely supports the claim that SOME Texas works CAN BE copyrighted under state statute.
It seems reasonable to conclude that "Most if not all Texas works are copyrighted" is original research by you that is based on the quotations above.
(It also seems reasonable to conclude that, based on your non-response, you concede that I and the authors of the linked article DO know the difference between public record and public domain.)
So the AG's statement is the best we've got, which makes {{PD-TXGov}} appropriate. --Elvey (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Google thread necromancy. Dispute came up about some texas works recently, so I ended up looking up some of the relevant statutes.

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks/Kudos Gaijin42! Looks like that 2003 law did make Texas county works eligible for copyright.
  • However, it looks to me like that second reference you provide isn't to Texas statute; it's to proposed statute.
--Elvey (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Noteworthy: there's no copyright notice at Rather it says "Some information on may be protected by trademark and copyright laws and otherwise protected as intellectual property." [1]--Elvey (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  1. (Click 'more' under "Linking Policy"
Return to the user page of "Elvey/Template:PD-MAGov".