7 ms·

Why should the California Code of Regulations be copyright and licensed with a creative commons license rather than just being public domain? Federal governmen

Why should the California Code of Regulations be copyright and licensed with a creative commons license rather than just being public domain? Federal government works cannot be copyright. State and local can; requiring a creative commons license (open access creative commons attribution license) presumably would ensure the broadest possible distribution.

adrr 14y ago
Laws shouldn't have copyrights, they are facts.
- emidln 14y ago
  As much as I'd like to agree, facts don't require interpretation.
  - michaelhoffman 14y ago
    Yes they do. I'm a scientist; I spend all my time trying to interpret facts. I agree with the previous poster--the text of the statute or regulation itself should not have copyright protection, regardless of whether more interpretation is needed to understand its implications.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
btilly 14y ago
Not so fast. Whether state and local laws can be copyrighted is not a settled legal question, and precedent in the 5th circuit (which California is admittedly not in) says that it cannot. No copyright is broader access than a creative copyright license, so I'd prefer that default. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm for more on what the 5th circuit said. An example of something that the creative commons attribution license would prevent is the incorporation of the license text into GPLed software.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  The last word on it (as far as I can tell) is that Veeck is right and there is no copyright on "the law", even measly building codes. I have no idea if I've read it wrong, or if the court has changed its mind in the mean time. >Conclusion >[51] For the reasons discussed above, we REVERSE the district court's judgment against Peter Veeck, and REMAND with instructions to dismiss SBCCI's claims.
  - btilly 14y ago
    I would say "the latest word" and not "the last word". That precedent is only binding on the fifth circuit. California courts are free to decide differently. If the issue is deemed important enough, eventually it is likely to wind up in front of the Supreme Court. See http://boingboing.net/2012/03/19/liberating-americas-secret.html http://boingboing.net/2012/03/19/liberating-americas-secret.... for an interesting case that might force this to get tested.
- dragonwriter 14y ago
  Yeah, the thing is, its not a settled legal question. The bill specifying license terms is obviously moot if copyright protection does not apply, but as long as copyright protection does apply, or as long as there is a legal question that it might apply, having the most open licensing terms reduces the risk that use might land you in a copyright trap.
charonn0 14y ago
California law and regulation incorporate by reference[1] standards and regulations devised and drafted by groups outside of government like the International Code Council[2] and National Fire Protection Association[3]. This isn't bad per se since these groups know better than most legislators about the specific domain being treated (experts on structural fires writing fire codes, e.g.) These referenced regulations are protected by Copyrights owned not by the legislator or government, but by the original private authors. As a consequence, having access to these Copyrighted, commercialized, non-free documents becomes a requirement for anyone wishing to know what the law is. [1]: http://tr.ansfer.me/1cim http://tr.ansfer.me/1cim [2]: http://www.iccsafe.org/ http://www.iccsafe.org/ [3]: http://www.nfpa.org/ http://www.nfpa.org/
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- _delirium 14y ago
  It might make sense for the state to negotiate a license for widespread free distribution before agreeing to incorporate a document by reference. While I support the end result of this petition, and think it's better than the status quo, it is a little weird to think that something I wrote could automatically become public domain if the state incorporates it by reference into a law. What if I didn't want them to? It'd be a lot cleaner if the state acquired the rights to the document before writing it into a law. Alternately, we could have truly public bodies, rather than quasi-public-sphere but actually private organizations, coming up with these model regulations.
dragonwriter 14y ago
Under US Federal law, anything that can be subject to copyright is subject to copyright at the moment it is set in fixed form. It is not an option. So, insofar as the CCR is copyrightable subject matter under federal law, it automatically is subject to copyright, and the only real question is licensing terms (public domain dedications, have something of a hazy legal effect, which makes them a less viable option for a legal requirement.)

adrr 14y ago

Laws shouldn't have copyrights, they are facts.

emidln 14y ago
As much as I'd like to agree, facts don't require interpretation.
- michaelhoffman 14y ago
  Yes they do. I'm a scientist; I spend all my time trying to interpret facts. I agree with the previous poster--the text of the statute or regulation itself should not have copyright protection, regardless of whether more interpretation is needed to understand its implications.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

btilly 14y ago

Not so fast. Whether state and local laws can be copyrighted is not a settled legal question, and precedent in the 5th circuit (which California is admittedly not in) says that it cannot. No copyright is broader access than a creative copyright license, so I'd prefer that default. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm for more on what the 5th circuit said. An example of something that the creative commons attribution license would prevent is the incorporation of the license text into GPLed software.

fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
The last word on it (as far as I can tell) is that Veeck is right and there is no copyright on "the law", even measly building codes. I have no idea if I've read it wrong, or if the court has changed its mind in the mean time. >Conclusion >[51] For the reasons discussed above, we REVERSE the district court's judgment against Peter Veeck, and REMAND with instructions to dismiss SBCCI's claims.
- btilly 14y ago
  I would say "the latest word" and not "the last word". That precedent is only binding on the fifth circuit. California courts are free to decide differently. If the issue is deemed important enough, eventually it is likely to wind up in front of the Supreme Court. See http://boingboing.net/2012/03/19/liberating-americas-secret.html http://boingboing.net/2012/03/19/liberating-americas-secret.... for an interesting case that might force this to get tested.
dragonwriter 14y ago
Yeah, the thing is, its not a settled legal question. The bill specifying license terms is obviously moot if copyright protection does not apply, but as long as copyright protection does apply, or as long as there is a legal question that it might apply, having the most open licensing terms reduces the risk that use might land you in a copyright trap.

charonn0 14y ago

California law and regulation incorporate by reference[1] standards and regulations devised and drafted by groups outside of government like the International Code Council[2] and National Fire Protection Association[3]. This isn't bad per se since these groups know better than most legislators about the specific domain being treated (experts on structural fires writing fire codes, e.g.) These referenced regulations are protected by Copyrights owned not by the legislator or government, but by the original private authors. As a consequence, having access to these Copyrighted, commercialized, non-free documents becomes a requirement for anyone wishing to know what the law is. [1]: http://tr.ansfer.me/1cim http://tr.ansfer.me/1cim [2]: http://www.iccsafe.org/ http://www.iccsafe.org/ [3]: http://www.nfpa.org/ http://www.nfpa.org/

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
_delirium 14y ago
It might make sense for the state to negotiate a license for widespread free distribution before agreeing to incorporate a document by reference. While I support the end result of this petition, and think it's better than the status quo, it is a little weird to think that something I wrote could automatically become public domain if the state incorporates it by reference into a law. What if I didn't want them to? It'd be a lot cleaner if the state acquired the rights to the document before writing it into a law. Alternately, we could have truly public bodies, rather than quasi-public-sphere but actually private organizations, coming up with these model regulations.

dragonwriter 14y ago

Under US Federal law, anything that can be subject to copyright is subject to copyright at the moment it is set in fixed form. It is not an option. So, insofar as the CCR is copyrightable subject matter under federal law, it automatically is subject to copyright, and the only real question is licensing terms (public domain dedications, have something of a hazy legal effect, which makes them a less viable option for a legal requirement.)