Template talk:PD-CAGov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Note about this template

This template cannot be used on images to which the copyright is owned by the University of California (or any of its branches), despite their being a California public university. I don't know the details of why, but they very clearly maintain their own intellectual property rights and in many instances have fought for them quite vigorously. A number of other CA state agencies (i.e., California DMV), seem to claim copyrights as well. --Fastfission 23:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Bits of copyright policy from California's various educational institutions:
Note, most of the above documents are only recommendations. IANAL. --Ryanrs 08:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

{{USAtags}}

[edit] Public domain?

Is there any reason to think that works made by California are automatically public domain? Note that the bottom of [1], for example, states "© 2005 State of California". dbenbenn | talk 20:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with this stuff, but this is probably the relevant legislation. California Public Records Act --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
That is not the relevant legislation, if such exists. It only deals with written documents(actually, the statue defines "writing" to be anything fixed, including pictures, or recordings), and it says nothing about them being in the public domain, or able to be "used for any purpose". I am pretty sure that California State materials are not in the public domain. Searching the CA Code brings up this quote, in a section devoted to mandating public access via the Internet to CA legislative info: "No action taken pursuant to this section shall be deemed to alter or relinquish any copyright or other proprietary interest or entitlement of the State of California relating to any of the information made available pursuant to this section." (Goverment Code section 10248 (g)) This seems to pretty clearly imply that California holds the copyright to material produced by its employees and this tag is, quite simply, wrong and Wikipedia's use of these photo is illegal. I would be delighted for someone to point me to a CA code reference stating otherwise. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
FYI, §6252(g) defines "writing" to include "photographing", "pictures, sounds, or symbols". --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, you are quite right. I missed that. Fixed. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Reading over the Public Records Act, it seems to clearly only provide that such records are able to be inspected, or a copy provided - no other rights are granted(such as public performance, further distribution, dervitivate works, etc.) And the various sources I've provided make it clear that copyright is vested in the State. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Here's some other sources that may be of interest: of Use from California Department of Boating and Waterways states: "In general, information presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law. However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use. Furthermore, the unique branding of the site and various official seals and marks may not be used without permission of the State."(italics mine)
The Copyright Information for the California Integrated Waste Management Board states: "©Copyright 1995, 2005 by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. All rights reserved. This publication, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced without permission.", however it also states: "CIWMB artwork may be used, resized, and recolored by anyone for a nonprofit purpose without permission from the Board. If artwork use is for profit, the individual must seek a written determination and permission from the Board.".
These sources seem to blow the idea of a general public domain status for CA State created material completely apart. While much of the material on various CA State websites may be legal for us to use, each one requires a seperate statement and source. There is no blanket rule. This template is invalid and incorrect. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

JesseW, you asked me to comment on this via my user page. I am not a lawyer or expert in this matter. I have only repeated information that I've come to understand from others on Wikipedia. Wikipedia project pages indicate the California public domain status: Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Public domain. Perhaps you should ask there for more information. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

First, I just want to thank you for commenting. I didn't know the code section you quoted and I had forgotten about the Copyright FAQ. The FAQ does say clearly that CA puts their material in the public domain (the statement was added by anthony here). However, I am still confused by the sources I mentioned above. I'll keep asking around. Thanks again. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Yep - this is true. In general, any text or images produced by a CA state employee as part of their official duties is in the public domain. At least, that is what the policy was when I worked for Caltrans a couple years ago. See also Ownership notice that should be linked from every CA state website. --mav 17:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it does seem like most (although not all) CA State agencies have that text(quoted above, states that "In general"..."public domain"); but there are also Copyright 2005 State of California notices on most of the pages. And the quote says that some stuff, unspecified, is not in the public domain. I'm not sure how to clarify this further, but it does seem like we probably can use this material barring any specific objections. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
It seems that, in general, text on California government sites is PD, but the images may not be. You have to check on each one. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Which, BTW, is always the case. One even has to check images used on federal government agencies' webpages carefully; they may use copyrighted images from third-party sources, too. Usually, such images are identified, though, with an appropriate byline. Just be aware that there may be copyrighted images even on .gov web sites. Lupo 07:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the whole question reflects on the litigious culture in California: it is more likely to occur to a minor California civil servant or councilman to copyright something just because, uh, you're supposed to for everything, for legal reasons, right?, which is why there are so many naive copyrights placed on things by small government agencies (I was going to jack content from California Integrated Waste Management Board, and loop it in my next hip-hop video, but now....).

-SM 18:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a question that might be a bit unrealetd but I am having a hard time finding a good answer. What about other states such as Oregon, Idaho, etc. Can we put up their executive orders and court opinions or are those copyrighted. It is hard to tell at some of the websites for those states and they are vague as well. This is my first time at Wikisource and I do not want to mess it up. Wabbit98 10:00PM, 11 December 2006 (PST)

[edit] TFD Debate

Note: This template was nominated for deletion by User:SPUI. Plase join in the relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 13#Template:PD-CAGov. BlankVerse 13:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do NOT remove this template

Removal would cause User:OrphanBot to remove several public domain images. This would undo the hard work of myself and several other people. Please don't remove this template. Dananderson 18:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I could see redirecting to {{disputed license}} or {{unclear license}} (except that those templates don't exist), but while the copyright status of the works from the State of California is still unclear, this template should not be redirected to {{no license}}, which triggers User:Orphanbot and the removal of the images after 5 days.
Also, why is this stuck in Category:Articles lacking sources? Most of the images that I've looked at in this category clearly have the source listed--it's the copyright status that is being disputed.
The tag itself has had the {{fact}} template added; that's why. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the images that have this template, I see several images where it should be changed to something else. The University of California, the California State University system (e.g. Image:Csulb pyramid.jpg), all the community colleges in California (e.g. Image:CCSF.gif), county governments (e.g. Image:LA County DA Seal.gif) and city governments (e.g. Image:EncinitasCitySeal.JPG) are all separate entities from the State of California, and are governed by their own copyright and trademark policies. In many cases, the images are the logos for colleges, so they can be given some sort of Logo tag. Other images, after evaluation, may fit under other fair use criteria, and still others may have to be deleted. BlankVerse 00:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The University of California, State University system, and community colleges are governed by separate boards. However, California counties are not separate, but subdivisions of the State government. Article 11, section 1 (Local Government):
The State is divided into counties which are legal subdivisions of the State.[2] Dananderson 20:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differs from Commons template

The template {{Template:PD-CAGov}} on Wikipedia

Public domain

This image is a work of a State of California employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties, and may or may not be in the public domain.
The legal status of works of the California state government has not been determined. Such works should be considered unlicensed for purposes of Wikipedia, pending further research regarding their public domain status.

and {{commons:Template:PD-CAGov}} on Commons

This image is in the public domain worldwide because it is a work of the State of California.

So, is Commons downrev on this issue?

-SM 17:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No. As an admin of Wikimedia Commons, I would like to report that commons:Template:PD-CAGov has been redirected to Commons:Template:Copyvio so any involved images there may be deleted if no valid objections to do so.--Jusjih 20:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State of California Copyrights

I just got the following email after talking to several State of California lawyers:

...The ownership issue disclosed on each State website puts the "information" contained on the website in the public domain. However, this does not include copyrightable materials such as photographs. Photographs taken by State of California workers while on State of California business are owned by the State of California, and should not be used commercially without State of California approval. Other photographs taken by and owned by individuals that may be on a State website should not be used commercially without the owner's approval.

If anyone needs the emails and contact information ask me and I forward via email. --Duk 01:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This is what is posted at the Caltrans web site on this page:

OWNERSHIP In general, information presented on this web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law. However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use. Furthermore, the unique branding of the site and various official seals and marks may not be used without permission of the State.

This is much more ambiguous than what is posted above. I read this to mean that if there is no indication on a webpage that a photo is copyrighted or restricted by the state, or requires additional permission, then it can be used. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know all that much about copyright law, but isn't it the responsibility of the State to post a policy that protects their copyrights, and not to post a policy that seems to give almost everything away? I'm sure that any State lawyer contacted would assert the most rigid interpretation that would give nothing away. That is their job. That doesn't necessarily mean it would hold up legally. Many of the pictures they post are thumbnails. When you click on the thumbnails you get a larger version with no copyright notice of any kind. And, what about images that are not photographs? --Samuel Wantman 23:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

We should (and nearly always do) use images (excepting fair use) where the copyright status is clear, and the copyright holder, if contacted, would agree that our use was legal. This is obviously and throughly not true in this case. End of argument. The fact that CA has a ambiguous, confusing, and legally unclear statement on many of their web pages is neither our problem, nor something we can or should take advantage of. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Samuel, sorry I didn't respond to your comment earlier - I missed it while on a wikibreak. I specifically asked about some of the points you raised above. Also, some of them are answered at WP:C;

  1. I read this to mean that if there is no indication on a webpage that a photo is copyrighted or restricted by the state, or requires additional permission, then it can be used.
    No, absolutely not; the lawyer made this very clear.
  2. but isn't it the responsibility of the State to post a policy that protects their copyrights.
    No; copyright extends to works as soon as they were published (in the past) or as soon as they are fixed (currently). The copyright owner has absolutely no responsibility to post a policy asserting their copyrights in order to get protection. It is granted automatically.
  3. I'm sure that any State lawyer contacted would assert the most rigid interpretation that would give nothing away..
    I talked to more that one lawyer and was refered to a lawyer from the state office that administers state property. She answered my very specific questions in person and by email.
  4. When you click on the thumbnails you get a larger version with no copyright notice of any kind.
    Whether or not there is a copyright notice with the image makes absolutely no difference whatsoever - this has been the case for decades.
  5. And, what about images that are not photographs?
    Copyright is not limited to photographs.

--Duk 05:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Revisiting this yet again, I noticed that a page on the Office of the Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante specifically spells out that California law is silent about whether State intellectual property is in the public domain and that that means that federal law must be followed. And under federal law, since the State has not waived any of its intellectual property rights, then no state intellectual property is in the public domain. So currently, it would be in violation of the law to utilize any State produced document, statute, publication, etc., without explicit permission. This may not be what the Legislature intends. He had consequently sponsored a bill, SB 875 to have a taskforce set up and look at the matter. The bill was amended numerous times, passing its committee each time. Interestingly, however, it was never brought up for a full vote and never made it out of the legislature. —lensovet–talk – 08:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] California Blue Book

  • State Blue Books, and also info at The California Blue Book, which presents pictures and biographies of California state government officials and legislators, plus descriptions of California government agencies. - Anyone know more detail about the copyright/public domain issues regarding the California Blue Book ?? Also more info to be found by searching "California Blue Book" at Worldcat Thanks for the help. Smee 09:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] SFOBB images

There are many images pertaining to the proposed eastern span replacement of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in Wikipedia and Commons. Are these OK or do these violate any copyrights or policy?

  1. Image:5262004bidopening.jpg marked with {{PD-because}},
  2. commons:Image:ProposedSFOBBEasternSpan.jpg marked with {{commons:Template:PD-because}},
  3. Image:SFOBB Rendering.jpg marked with {{non-free promotional}},
  4. commons:Image:SFOBBEastSpan.jpg marked with {{commons:Template:Copyrighted free use}},
  5. any more?

-- Paddu 13:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)