3 ms·
a) Works produced by the U.S. federal government, with the sole exception of protected trademarks, are legally in the public domain. Amazon's wording is unfort
by bbatsell 16y ago
a) Works produced by the U.S. federal government, with the sole exception of protected trademarks, are legally in the public domain. Amazon's wording is unfortunately murky — it does say "own or otherwise control", which can never apply to works in the public domain, so am I in violation of AWS ToS for hosting any single file that I do not have full control over? Items in the public domain, for example, or rights-managed content? If I've purchased a license to publish rights-managed content for one single usage, I in no way "own or otherwise control" the content. Where do I stand there?
b) Amazon further claimed that because Wikileaks released 250,000 documents, that demonstrated that there was no care taken in releasing them and thus they could cause harm to someone, somewhere. The only problem with this is that it is a complete and utter falsity. At the time, Wikileaks had released less than 1,000 documents (and at the end of the releases, less than 1,500 to my knowledge). Every single document released had been pre-cleared and redacted by five well-respected international newspapers they partnered with.
- bradly 16y ago> Works produced by the U.S. federal government, with the sole exception of protected trademarks, are legally in the public domain. Is this really true? Does anyone have a source for this? Wouldn't this imply that it is illegal for the U.S. federal government to hold any information confidential?
- bbatsell 16y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the... I don't know of a statute that makes it illegal to attempt to restrict access to works legally in the public domain, so no, I don't think that implication follows. Once a classified work is public, however, the government cannot assert copyright. They must use clauses in laws such as the Espionage Act to attack the release, and the Supreme Court has not looked kindly upon those attemptsº. ºhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_St...
- firemanx 16y agoHas anyone bothered to ask the question of "public domain for who?". I would assume that works created by the US taxpayers (via the government) would be public domain for US citizens, but is there a clear cut definition of them being public domain for non-US citizens? I can think of several restrictions on such things (such as crypto), that prove otherwise. If that's the case, does Wikileaks count as a US citizen? I'll admit, I'm completely unfamiliar with the makeup of the organization outside of Julian Assange (who is not a US citizen). If Wikileaks couldn't count as a US citizen, how would they be considered as "owning the data" if the above points are true? I ask this not to be contrary or confrontational, but simply because I'm curious. This occurred to me awhile back but I haven't seen this position represented since.
- alextgordon 16y agoIt seems you are correct, the public domain status only applies inside the US. http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#317 http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#317