Misplaced Pages

#99900

42-473: As of May 1, 2024: (D-CA) (R-CA) (D-CA) (R-CA) (D-CA) (D-CA) (D-CA) (D-CA) (D-CA) (R-CA) (R-IL) (R-IL) (D-OH) (R-IL) (D-OH) (R-IL) (D-OH) (R-IL) (D-OH) (R-LA) (D-OH) [REDACTED]  This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the United States Government . This United States federal legislation article

84-688: A contractor or grantee; copyrighted material assigned to the U.S. Government; or copyrighted information from other sources. Further, the copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States is governed by its own set of laws. The first Federal statute concerning copyright in government publications was the Printing Law enacted in 1895 . Section 52 of that Act provided that copies of "Government Publications" could not be copyrighted. Prior to 1895, no court decision had occasion to consider any claim of copyright on behalf of

126-553: A government-published set of Presidential proclamations. Section 7 of the Copyright Act of 1909 (later codified as Section 8 of title 17 U.S.C.) provided that "No copyright shall subsist ... in any publication of the United States Government, or any reprint, in whole or in part, thereof ..." Section 7 also contained a "savings clause", which stated that "The publication or republication by

168-506: A state or local government may be subject to copyright. Some states have placed much of their work into the public domain by waiving some or all of their rights under copyright law. For example, the constitution and laws of Florida have placed its government's works in the public domain. Unorganized territories (such as American Samoa and the former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands ) are treated, for copyright purposes, as

210-547: A view to facilitating the private republication of the Presidential Messages. Section 53 was attacked on the floor of the House on the ground that private persons might assert copyright claims upon republishing Government documents from the plates." It was then proposed that a proviso be added to section 53 "that no publication reprinted from such stereotype or electrotype plates shall be copyrighted." The opposition

252-629: Is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States A work of the United States government is defined by the United States copyright law , as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties". Under section 105 of the Copyright Act of 1976 , such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law and are therefore in

294-408: Is not required to assert claim to copyright. Whenever the contractor asserts claim to copyright in works other than computer software, the government, and others acting on its behalf, are granted a license to reproduce, prepare derivative works , distribute, perform and display the copyrighted work. For computer software produced under FAR contract, the scope of the government's license does not include

336-472: Is printed", with the proviso "that no publication reprinted from such stereotype or electrotype plates and no other Government publication shall be copyrighted". The provision in the Printing Act concerning copyright of government works was probably the result of the "Richardson Affair" , which involved an effort in the late 1890s by Representative James D. Richardson (1843–1914) to privately copyright

378-527: Is printed", with the proviso "that no publication reprinted from such stereotype or electrotype plates and no other Government publication shall be copyrighted." This prohibition was probably the result of the "Richardson Affair", which involved Representative James D. Richardson (1843–1914) who, at the time, was the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing. At the time when the Printing Act

420-432: Is published or republished commercially, it has frequently been the practice to add some "new matter" in the form of an introduction, editing, illustrations, etc., and to include a general copyright notice in the name of the commercial publisher. This in no way suggests to the public that the bulk of the work is uncopyrightable and therefore free for use. "To make the notice meaningful rather than misleading", section 403 of

462-614: The CIA Act of 1949 ( 50 U.S.C.   § 403m ). The United States Copyright Office considers "edicts of government", such as judicial opinions , administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents, not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are federal, state, or local as well as to those of foreign governments. Printing Act of 1895#The Richardson Affair and prohibition on copyright of government works The Printing Act of 1895

SECTION 10

#1732797258100

504-636: The Department of Commerce under the Standard Reference Data Act. National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), FY2020, granted civilian members of the faculty at twelve federal government institutions the authority to retain and own copyright of works produced in the course of employment for publication by a scholarly press or journal. The lack of copyright protection for works of the United States government does not apply to works of U.S. subnational governments. Thus, works created by

546-547: The United States Postal Service are typically subject to normal copyright. Most USPS materials, artwork, and design and all postage stamps as of January 1, 1978, or after are subject to copyright laws. Works of the former United States Post Office Department are in the public domain (due to its former position as a cabinet department). 15 U.S.C.   § 290e authorizes U.S. Secretary of Commerce to secure copyright for works produced by

588-584: The military may differ significantly from civilian agency contracts. Civilian agencies and NASA are guided by the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). There are a number of FAR provisions that can affect the ownership of the copyright. FAR Subpart 27.4—Rights in Data and Copyright provides copyright guidance for the civilian agencies and NASA. Additionally, some agencies may have their own FAR Supplements that they follow. Under

630-401: The public domain . This act only applies to U.S. domestic copyright as that is the extent of U.S. federal law. The U.S. government asserts that it can still hold the copyright to those works in other countries. Publication of an otherwise protected work by the U.S. government does not put that work in the public domain. For example, government publications may include works copyrighted by

672-454: The 1976 Act required that, when the copies consist " 'preponderantly of one or more works of the United States Government', the copyright notice (if any) identify those parts of the work in which copyright is claimed. A failure to meet this requirement would be treated as an omission of the notice", resulting, absent the application of some exception, in the loss of copyright protection. The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 amended

714-474: The Copyright Act that now govern U.S. Government work were enacted in 1976 as part of the Copyright Act of 1976 . The House Report to the enacted legislation stated that "the basic premise of section 105 of the bill is the same" as section 8 of the former title 17. Section 403 of the 1976 Act introduced a new provision concerning documents consisting preponderantly of one or more government works. In essence, such works would be denied copyright protection unless

756-480: The FAR general data rights clause (FAR 52.227-14), the government has unlimited rights in all data first produced in performance of or delivered under a contract, unless the contractor asserts a claim to copyright or the contract provides otherwise. Unless provided otherwise by an Agency FAR Supplement, a contractor may assert claim to copyright in scientific and technical articles based on or containing data first produced in

798-597: The Federal Government had no right to claim copyright in a work prepared by him for the Government. Other decisions had held that individuals could not have copyright in books consisting of the text of Federal or State court decisions, statutes, rules of judicial procedures, etc., i.e., governmental edicts and rulings. Copyright was denied on the grounds of public policy: such material as the laws and governmental rules and decisions must be freely available to

840-542: The Government Printing Office, some of the volumes were printed with a copyright notice in the name of Mr. Richardson. When this was questioned in Congress, Representative Richardson said that he was not claiming copyright as against the Government but only against third persons, and that his claim was limited to the original matter created by his editorial work. Other members of Congress expressed

882-445: The Government itself. Courts had, however, considered whether copyright could be asserted as to the text of laws, court decisions, governmental rules, etc., and concluded that such material were not subject to copyright as a matter of public policy. But other material prepared for State Governments by their employees, notably the headnotes, syllabi, annotations, etc. prepared by court reporters, had been held copyrightable on behalf of

SECTION 20

#1732797258100

924-460: The Government, either separately or in a public document, of any material in which copyright is subsisting shall not be taken to cause any abridgment or annulment of the copyright or to authorize any use or appropriation of such copyright material without the consent of the copyright proprietor." The committee report on the bill that became the Act of 1909 explains that the savings clause was inserted "for

966-497: The State. Such copyrights for the benefit of the State were sustained by the courts. Two cases before 1895 may also be noted with regard to the question of the rights of individual authors (or their successors) in material prepared for, or acquired by, the United States Government. In Heine v. Appleton , an artist was held to have no right to secure copyright in drawings prepared by him as a member of Commodore Perry's expedition, since

1008-529: The States. The Copyright Act of 1909 was the first copyright statute to address government publications. Section 7 of the Act (later codified as Section 8 of title 17 U.S.C.) provided that "No copyright shall subsist   ... in any publication of the United States Government, or any reprint, in whole or in part, thereof". Prior to the Printing Act of 1895, no statute governed copyright of U.S. government works. Court decisions had established that an employee of

1050-584: The Superintendent of Public Documents, who would be under the control of the GPO, The Printing Act is also significant because it contained the first statutory prohibition of copyright in Government publications . Section 52 of the Printing Act, which is still in force, provides for the sale by the Public Printer of "duplicate stereotype or electrotype plates from which any Government publication

1092-531: The U.S. government. Their works therefore fall under § 105 and lack copyright protection. Certain works, particularly logos and emblems of government agencies, while not copyrightable, are still protected by other laws that are similar in effect to trademark laws. Such laws are intended to protect indicators of source or quality. For example, some uses of the Central Intelligence Agency logo, name, and initialism are regulated under

1134-399: The copies or phonorecords embodying any work or works protected under this title". Unlike works of the U.S. government, works produced by contractors under government contracts are protected under U.S. copyright law . The holdership of the copyright depends on the terms of the contract and the type of work undertaken. Contract terms and conditions vary between agencies; contracts to NASA and

1176-467: The court decisions. These cases may be said to have established the principle that material prepared by a government employee outside of the scope of the public policy rule was copyrightable; and that the employee who prepared such material on his own could secure copyright therein. There appears to be no court decision before 1895 dealing directly with the question of whether the United States Government might obtain or hold copyright in material not within

1218-425: The drawings belonged to the Government. In Folsom v. Marsh , where a collection of letters and other private writings of George Washington had been published and copyrighted by his successors, the purchase of the manuscripts by the United States Government was held not to affect the copyright. The contention of the defendant that the Government's ownership of the manuscripts made them available for publication by anyone

1260-444: The federal government purchased former U.S. President James Madison 's manuscripts from his widow, Dolley Madison , for $ 30,000. If this is construed as covering copyright as well as the physical papers, it would be an example of such a transfer. Works by certain independent agencies, corporations and federal subsidiaries may not be considered "government works" and may, therefore, be copyrightable. For instance, material produced by

1302-405: The law to make the use of a copyright notice optional on copies of works published on and after March 1, 1989 and also revised Section 403. After the adoption of this act, a copyright notice was no longer necessary to secure copyright protection. Including the notice, however, does continue to confer certain benefits, notably in the challenging a defendant's claim of innocent infringement, where

Social Security Fairness Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

1344-489: The performance of a contract and published in academic, technical or professional journals, symposia proceedings, or the like. The express written permission of the Contracting Officer is required before the contractor may assert or enforce the copyright in all other works first produced in the performance of a contract. However, if a contract includes Alternate IV of the clause, the Contracting Officer's approval

1386-408: The public and made known as widely as possible; hence there must be no restriction on the reproduction and dissemination of such documents. While copyright was denied in the text of court decisions, material added by a court reporter on his own – such as leadnotes, syllabi, annotations, indexes, etc. – was deemed copyrightable by him, although he was employed by the government to take down and compile

1428-592: The public policy rule. But the question did arise with respect to State Governments. In the nineteenth century much of the public printing for the States was done under contract by private publishers. The publisher would not bear the expense of printing and publishing, however, unless he could be given exclusive rights. To enable the State to give exclusive rights to a publisher, a number of States enacted statutes providing that court reporters or other State officials who prepared copyrightable material in their official capacity should secure copyright in trust for or on behalf of

1470-442: The question of proper notice may be a factor in assessing damages in infringement actions. Under the revised Section 403, these benefits are denied to a work consisting predominantly U.S. Government works "unless the notice of copyright appearing on the published copies or phonorecords to which a defendant in the copyright infringement suit had access includes a statement identifying, either affirmatively or negatively, those portions of

1512-426: The reason that the Government often desires to make use in its publications of copyrighted material, with the consent of the owner of the copyright, and it has been regarded heretofore as necessary to pass a special act every time this was done, providing that such use by the Government should not be taken to give to anyone the right to use the copyrighted material found in the Government publication". The Sections of

1554-467: The required copyright notice included a statement specifically identifying those parts of the work that were not U.S. Government work, and therefore subject to copyright protection. According to the House Report, this provision was aimed at a publishing practice that, while technically justified under the present law, has been the object of considerable criticism. In cases where a Government work

1596-401: The right to distribute to the public, but for " commercial off the shelf software", the government typically obtains no better license than would any other customer. The federal government can hold copyrights that are transferred to it. Copyright law's definition of work of the United States government does not include work that the government owns but did not create. For example, in 1837,

1638-587: Was a law designed to centralize in the United States Government Printing Office the printing, binding, and distribution of U.S. Government documents. The Act revised public printing laws and established the roles of the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) and the Government Printing Office (GPO) in distributing government information. The act also assigned leadership of the program to

1680-621: Was being considered, the Joint Committee on Printing was in the process of preparing for publication a compilation of the "Messages and Papers of the Presidents of the United States." In the Printing bill as presented by the Joint Committee to the House, section 53 (which later became section 52 of the Law of 1895) provided for the sale of duplicate plates by the Public Printer, this provision apparently having been suggested by Mr. Richardson with

1722-409: Was denied. The Printing Law of 1895, which was designed to centralize in the Government Printing Office, the printing, binding, and distribution of Government documents, contained the first statutory prohibition of copyright in Government publications. Section 52 of that Law provides for the sale by the Public Printer of "duplicate stereotype or electrotype plates from which any Government publication

Social Security Fairness Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

1764-439: Was not satisfied with that but accepted a further proposal that the proviso be extended by inserting the words "and no other Government publication." The bill was passed with the proviso in that form. Perhaps the opposition had anticipated and sought to forestall what happened subsequently: After several volumes of the Presidential Messages were compiled by Mr. Richardson and Congress authorized them to be printed and distributed by

#99900