3 ms·

I did my research and the public domain mandate for federal works apparently doesn't apply to the states. Some states actually enforce their copyrights and have

I did my research and the public domain mandate for federal works apparently doesn't apply to the states. Some states actually enforce their copyrights and have whole licensing systems for state government-produced works. Isn't this a whole 1st Amendment violation? The law is intended for private parties and the 1st is incorporated to the states since a very long time. Has anyone sued over this?

idlewords 3y ago
The full text of the First Amendment is short: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Where is the connection to requiring anything to be put in the public domain?
- EMIRELADERO 3y ago
  By enforcing copyright law, states restrict the freedom of speech of their citizens by prohibiting/going after certain kinds of expression (someone relying the state government's own speech is in itself speech) In order to not be unconstitutional, therefore, copyright law should be interpreted as not protecting state works.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Copyright is itself in the constitution.
    - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
      Correct, but the 1st is stronger. This is why fair use even exists. In order to coexist with the first amendment, the copyright clause must allow some wiggle room for freedom of expression and balancing the rightsholder's interests with society's. Since these "safety valves" exist even for enforcement of the copyrights of private parties, a state government's enforcement would be even more, if not entirely thwarted by the free speech clause.
      - tptacek 3y ago
        The Copyright Clause is explicit about the authority of Congress to grant exclusivity. You're not going to get anywhere with an argument that it contravenes the First Amendment. They were ratified almost simultaneously.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

idlewords 3y ago

The full text of the First Amendment is short: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Where is the connection to requiring anything to be put in the public domain?

EMIRELADERO 3y ago
By enforcing copyright law, states restrict the freedom of speech of their citizens by prohibiting/going after certain kinds of expression (someone relying the state government's own speech is in itself speech) In order to not be unconstitutional, therefore, copyright law should be interpreted as not protecting state works.
- tptacek 3y ago
  Copyright is itself in the constitution.
  - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
    Correct, but the 1st is stronger. This is why fair use even exists. In order to coexist with the first amendment, the copyright clause must allow some wiggle room for freedom of expression and balancing the rightsholder's interests with society's. Since these "safety valves" exist even for enforcement of the copyrights of private parties, a state government's enforcement would be even more, if not entirely thwarted by the free speech clause.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      The Copyright Clause is explicit about the authority of Congress to grant exclusivity. You're not going to get anywhere with an argument that it contravenes the First Amendment. They were ratified almost simultaneously.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]