Slashdot Mirror

Yep, they can, and they have! Start at Title 17 USC, Section 101.

Or just go read here - http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#311

What must be seen is whether the government would have any copyright over the creation of this NASA video. Since NASA is a Federal level agency, it's very possible that it does.

Isn't any media put out by any U.S. government entity, aka done on the taxpayers' dime, public domain, provided it is not classified or otherwise sensitive information?

I do recall seeing in the above article, that the footage is in fact public domain due to being taxpayer funded.

Yep, they can, and they have! Start at Title 17 USC, Section 101.

Or just go read here - http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#311

What must be seen is whether the government would have any copyright over the creation of this NASA video. Since NASA is a Federal level agency, it's very possible that it does.

And since when has it been Amazon's business to pro-actively go after possible infringement even with no formal request, complaint or court order? If anything, I would think AWS would ideally not have to moderate content -- if they do, they become publishers and open themselves up for more lawsuits in cases where they did not proactively censor content that was found to be illegal. AWS is ideally just a data storage and delivery mechanism, not a content moderation system.

This is not to say I agree with attacks, of course; it was not only a stupid idea but wrong. I just think Amazon royally pooped up this case and that they deserve all and any flak they get (even if only from geeks like slashdot readers).

3.1.7 Does the Government have copyright protection in U.S. Government works in other countries?

Yes, the copyright exclusion for works of the U.S. Government is not intended to have any impact on protection of these works abroad (S. REP. NO. 473, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 56 (1976)). Therefore, the U.S. Government may obtain protection in other countries depending on the treatment of government works by the national copyright law of the particular country. Copyright is sometimes asserted by U.S. Government agencies outside the United States.
Frequently Asked Questions About Copyright Issues Affecting the U.S. Government CENDI/2008-1 October 8, 2008

Sorry but life just isn't fair, they are heading toward 400,000 documents and if they get fined for infrigement at U$250,000.00 a document, that's about U$ 100B times all the downloads of the Insurance file.

Well in the wikileaks, the greatest vulnerability is in copyright violations, all it takes is one cable trash-talking Rush Limbaugh with a quote or an email from somebody like Michael Yon to somebody in the State Deptment and we're off to the courts for infringement. and what most people don't realize is

3.1.7 Does the Government have copyright protection in U.S. Government works in other countries?

Yes, the copyright exclusion for works of the U.S. Government is not intended to have any impact on protection of these works abroad (S. REP. NO. 473, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 56 (1976)). Therefore, the U.S. Government may obtain protection in other countries depending on the treatment of government works by the national copyright law of the particular country. Copyright is sometimes asserted by U.S. Government agencies outside the United States.
Frequently Asked Questions About Copyright

so even the USG could easily get into the fray.

It's the law for federal documents. None of them are copyrightable.
I would be surprised in this would actually hold up in court, or even go to court becasue what started this and the fact that the assistant is involved in a case the AG is trying to cover up. If they take this to court, not only are they likely to lose* but facts about the other case will come out.

*based on other city agency tnhat ahve to give out public information.
check out Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)6

http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html

Just to add a bit of detail to the above... the FAR and a US government FAQ indicate that while individual contracts can vary, the normal situation seems to be that the contractor retains copyright while the government gets a license to "reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, perform and display the copyrighted work". It is also true that the federal government can become a copyright owner if someone who owns a copyright assigns it to the government. So there are three possibilities:

1. The video was produced under contract, and the contractor retains copyright. If that were the case, the contractor could have written a takedown letter.
2. The video was produced under contract, and the contractor assigned copyright to the government.
3. The video was produced by government staff, and is not protected by copyright.

I believe there are at least four classes of non-copyrighted material:
1. Material that was but the copyright has expired, eg Hamlet.
2. Material that is not subject to copyright, like Federal Government publications ("Copyright protection ... is not available for any work of the United States Government...") eg the Federal Aviation Regulations.
3. Collated mathematical tables or other large groups of derivable data, if not used in the same format as the book from which they came.
4. Materials that lack sufficient complexity for copyright -- I can't write the letter 'A' on a piece of paper and then claim I've copyrighted it and go after other people for use of it.

Within each of these groups, there are at least tens of thousands, if not millions, of instances. I bet there are petabytes of non-copyrighted material out there.

Unlike works of the U.S. Government, works produced by contractors under government contracts are protected under U.S. Copyright Law. (See Schnapper v. Foley, 667 F.2d 102 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 948 (1982).) The ownership of the copyright depends on the terms of the contract. Contract terms and conditions vary between civilian agencies or NASA and the military.

Any work produced by the US Government can't be copyrighted:
http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.ht ml#toc30

I don't know about state or local agencies like the transit authorities, but it would seem to make sense that they shouldn't be allowed to copyright their materials either. The same principle is at stake. The taxpayers pay for the creation of the work so the taxpayers should share ownership.