Hi all,
Upon further reflection, it's likely that the exceptions are so broad that nearly all works could actually be withheld from the public domain and fall under copyright. This analysis is consistent with the EFF's position. I've revised Wikimedia DC's potential letter (attached) to reflect this. (Note of course that this is a draft that has not yet been approved by the chapter, and may change.)
I'd love to get your feedback on the letter. I've been advised that we should send this out before the beginning of next week, so I'd like to get your input soon.
Thanks!
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 2:36 PM, John P. Sadowski johnpsadowski@gmail.com
wrote:
Wait, wait. The bill has changed significantly in the last few days. The new language states that any potentially copyrightable work “shall be released into the public domain” with certain exceptions, and even under the exceptions they “shall issue the requesting party a license to use the record,” though it may be a non-commercial license. Are these exceptions fine or are they too broad? If they are reasonable, the bill would actually affirmatively put government works in the public domain, instead of having to rely on a court decision, which would actually be something we should support.
FWIW I actually did write a draft for a letter for Wikimedia District of Columbia to approve and send out (attached), but the changes to the bill may make it unnecessary, or would require some rewriting if we think the exceptions should be tightened.
Thanks.
John
*From:* Publicpolicy [mailto:publicpolicy-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephen LaPorte *Sent:* Saturday, June 04, 2016 12:51 PM
*To:* Publicpolicy Group for Wikimedia *Subject:* Re: [Publicpolicy] US/California AB 2880 vs PD-California?
Thanks, Tim! I'll reach out to Ernesto about the letter.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Timothy Vollmer tvol@creativecommons.org wrote:
EFF's organizing a letter to the California Senate in opposition to this. I'm not sure what the mechanism is for WMF to act on this, but if it is interested in reading it/signing, it should send a note to Ernesto Falcon at EFF (ernesto@eff.org). Several orgs are signing on, including:
Association of Research Libraries
Creative Commons
Association of College and Research Libraries
Sunlight Foundation
American Library Association
Niskanen Center
Californians Aware
Creative Commons USA
Northern California Association of Law Libraries
Data Coalition
Open Media and Information Companies Initiative
Student Press Law Center
Public Knowledge
Fight for the Future
timothy
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 11:03 PM, John P. Sadowski < johnpsadowski@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
This bill passed the California Assembly (one of the two houses of the California State Legislature) yesterday, but it was amended to include the following language [1]:
*13988.3 (b) (1) When a state entity creates a work that is otherwise subject to copyright protection, the work shall be released into the public domain unless the state entity reasonably determines any of the following:*
*(A) The work has commercial value, and the release would jeopardize the integrity of the work.*
*(B) The release would infringe upon the property interests of a third party.*
*(C) The release would detrimentally affect the state’s interests in its trademarks, service marks, patents, or trade secrets.*
*(2) If a state entity reasonably determines that a work meets the criteria described in paragraph (1), the entity shall catalog those works and submit the information to the department for the purpose of tracking intellectual property generated by state employees or with state funding as provided in Section 13998.2.*
…
*(e) Nothing in this section requires a state entity to own, license, or formally register intellectual property that it creates or otherwise acquires.*
*(f) This section shall not apply to the use of expressive works created by nonstate employees or without state funding.*
*…*
*(c) A public agency that releases a public record that is subject to copyright protection pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 13988.3 shall issue the requesting party a license to use the record in a manner that is consistent with the rights provided under this chapter and that is considered an act of fair use under the federal Copyright Act. The license may restrict the holder from using the record for a commercial use only if such use would result in economic harm to the public agency or to the public’s interest.*
Are we happy with this? I suppose that letter I was writing may be moot now…
John
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201...
John,
I like the position in your revised letter. It's good to take a clear stance explaining that works of the government should belong to the public. I'm working on a letter and blog post to share shortly on this bill too.
If you're still looking for feedback, I have a few suggestions. I'll follow up with you directly.
Thank you!
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:22 PM, John Sadowski johnpsadowski@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Upon further reflection, it's likely that the exceptions are so broad that nearly all works could actually be withheld from the public domain and fall under copyright. This analysis is consistent with the EFF's position. I've revised Wikimedia DC's potential letter (attached) to reflect this. (Note of course that this is a draft that has not yet been approved by the chapter, and may change.)
I'd love to get your feedback on the letter. I've been advised that we should send this out before the beginning of next week, so I'd like to get your input soon.
Thanks!
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 2:36 PM, John P. Sadowski johnpsadowski@gmail.com
wrote:
Wait, wait. The bill has changed significantly in the last few days. The new language states that any potentially copyrightable work “shall be released into the public domain” with certain exceptions, and even under the exceptions they “shall issue the requesting party a license to use the record,” though it may be a non-commercial license. Are these exceptions fine or are they too broad? If they are reasonable, the bill would actually affirmatively put government works in the public domain, instead of having to rely on a court decision, which would actually be something we should support.
FWIW I actually did write a draft for a letter for Wikimedia District of Columbia to approve and send out (attached), but the changes to the bill may make it unnecessary, or would require some rewriting if we think the exceptions should be tightened.
Thanks.
John
*From:* Publicpolicy [mailto:publicpolicy-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephen LaPorte *Sent:* Saturday, June 04, 2016 12:51 PM
*To:* Publicpolicy Group for Wikimedia *Subject:* Re: [Publicpolicy] US/California AB 2880 vs PD-California?
Thanks, Tim! I'll reach out to Ernesto about the letter.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Timothy Vollmer < tvol@creativecommons.org> wrote:
EFF's organizing a letter to the California Senate in opposition to this. I'm not sure what the mechanism is for WMF to act on this, but if it is interested in reading it/signing, it should send a note to Ernesto Falcon at EFF (ernesto@eff.org). Several orgs are signing on, including:
Association of Research Libraries
Creative Commons
Association of College and Research Libraries
Sunlight Foundation
American Library Association
Niskanen Center
Californians Aware
Creative Commons USA
Northern California Association of Law Libraries
Data Coalition
Open Media and Information Companies Initiative
Student Press Law Center
Public Knowledge
Fight for the Future
timothy
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 11:03 PM, John P. Sadowski < johnpsadowski@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
This bill passed the California Assembly (one of the two houses of the California State Legislature) yesterday, but it was amended to include the following language [1]:
*13988.3 (b) (1) When a state entity creates a work that is otherwise subject to copyright protection, the work shall be released into the public domain unless the state entity reasonably determines any of the following:*
*(A) The work has commercial value, and the release would jeopardize the integrity of the work.*
*(B) The release would infringe upon the property interests of a third party.*
*(C) The release would detrimentally affect the state’s interests in its trademarks, service marks, patents, or trade secrets.*
*(2) If a state entity reasonably determines that a work meets the criteria described in paragraph (1), the entity shall catalog those works and submit the information to the department for the purpose of tracking intellectual property generated by state employees or with state funding as provided in Section 13998.2.*
…
*(e) Nothing in this section requires a state entity to own, license, or formally register intellectual property that it creates or otherwise acquires.*
*(f) This section shall not apply to the use of expressive works created by nonstate employees or without state funding.*
*…*
*(c) A public agency that releases a public record that is subject to copyright protection pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 13988.3 shall issue the requesting party a license to use the record in a manner that is consistent with the rights provided under this chapter and that is considered an act of fair use under the federal Copyright Act. The license may restrict the holder from using the record for a commercial use only if such use would result in economic harm to the public agency or to the public’s interest.*
Are we happy with this? I suppose that letter I was writing may be moot now…
John
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201...
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
Hi folks,
I wanted to share a copy of a letter that we sent on AB 2880: https://policy.wikimedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/wikimedia-ab2880.pdf
As well as a blog post on the topic: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/06/14/california-government-public-domain/
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.org wrote:
John,
I like the position in your revised letter. It's good to take a clear stance explaining that works of the government should belong to the public. I'm working on a letter and blog post to share shortly on this bill too.
If you're still looking for feedback, I have a few suggestions. I'll follow up with you directly.
Thank you!
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:22 PM, John Sadowski johnpsadowski@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Upon further reflection, it's likely that the exceptions are so broad that nearly all works could actually be withheld from the public domain and fall under copyright. This analysis is consistent with the EFF's position. I've revised Wikimedia DC's potential letter (attached) to reflect this. (Note of course that this is a draft that has not yet been approved by the chapter, and may change.)
I'd love to get your feedback on the letter. I've been advised that we should send this out before the beginning of next week, so I'd like to get your input soon.
Thanks!
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 2:36 PM, John P. Sadowski <johnpsadowski@gmail.com
wrote:
Wait, wait. The bill has changed significantly in the last few days. The new language states that any potentially copyrightable work “shall be released into the public domain” with certain exceptions, and even under the exceptions they “shall issue the requesting party a license to use the record,” though it may be a non-commercial license. Are these exceptions fine or are they too broad? If they are reasonable, the bill would actually affirmatively put government works in the public domain, instead of having to rely on a court decision, which would actually be something we should support.
FWIW I actually did write a draft for a letter for Wikimedia District of Columbia to approve and send out (attached), but the changes to the bill may make it unnecessary, or would require some rewriting if we think the exceptions should be tightened.
Thanks.
John
*From:* Publicpolicy [mailto:publicpolicy-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephen LaPorte *Sent:* Saturday, June 04, 2016 12:51 PM
*To:* Publicpolicy Group for Wikimedia *Subject:* Re: [Publicpolicy] US/California AB 2880 vs PD-California?
Thanks, Tim! I'll reach out to Ernesto about the letter.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Timothy Vollmer < tvol@creativecommons.org> wrote:
EFF's organizing a letter to the California Senate in opposition to this. I'm not sure what the mechanism is for WMF to act on this, but if it is interested in reading it/signing, it should send a note to Ernesto Falcon at EFF (ernesto@eff.org). Several orgs are signing on, including:
Association of Research Libraries
Creative Commons
Association of College and Research Libraries
Sunlight Foundation
American Library Association
Niskanen Center
Californians Aware
Creative Commons USA
Northern California Association of Law Libraries
Data Coalition
Open Media and Information Companies Initiative
Student Press Law Center
Public Knowledge
Fight for the Future
timothy
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 11:03 PM, John P. Sadowski < johnpsadowski@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
This bill passed the California Assembly (one of the two houses of the California State Legislature) yesterday, but it was amended to include the following language [1]:
*13988.3 (b) (1) When a state entity creates a work that is otherwise subject to copyright protection, the work shall be released into the public domain unless the state entity reasonably determines any of the following:*
*(A) The work has commercial value, and the release would jeopardize the integrity of the work.*
*(B) The release would infringe upon the property interests of a third party.*
*(C) The release would detrimentally affect the state’s interests in its trademarks, service marks, patents, or trade secrets.*
*(2) If a state entity reasonably determines that a work meets the criteria described in paragraph (1), the entity shall catalog those works and submit the information to the department for the purpose of tracking intellectual property generated by state employees or with state funding as provided in Section 13998.2.*
…
*(e) Nothing in this section requires a state entity to own, license, or formally register intellectual property that it creates or otherwise acquires.*
*(f) This section shall not apply to the use of expressive works created by nonstate employees or without state funding.*
*…*
*(c) A public agency that releases a public record that is subject to copyright protection pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 13988.3 shall issue the requesting party a license to use the record in a manner that is consistent with the rights provided under this chapter and that is considered an act of fair use under the federal Copyright Act. The license may restrict the holder from using the record for a commercial use only if such use would result in economic harm to the public agency or to the public’s interest.*
Are we happy with this? I suppose that letter I was writing may be moot now…
John
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201...
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
-- Stephen LaPorte Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation
*NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and ethical reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
On 06/14/2016 12:56 PM, Stephen LaPorte wrote:
I wanted to share a copy of a letter that we sent on AB 2880: https://policy.wikimedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/wikimedia-ab2880.pdf
As well as a blog post on the topic: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/06/14/california-government-public-domain/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/california-legislature-drops-proposal-...
EFF warned the bill’s authors about these problems in early May. Soon after, numerous other organizations joined in opposition from library groups to open government advocates to newspapers, Internet companies, and the California Chamber of Commerce. And more than 360 Californians wrote to their state legislators through EFF’s Action Center to sound the alarm.
Those efforts have paid off. This week, the bill was amended to remove the new intellecutual property powers and the new exemptions to CPRA. What remains are provisions for better tracking of state patents, trademarks, and copyrights, and a new requirement that state agencies “consider” the intellectual property rights of all parties when they write contracts. These changes should help avoid situations like the ongoing trademark dispute over hotels and campgrounds in Yosemite National Park, without harming public access to government records and data.
Based on the new amendments, EFF is dropping its opposition to A.B. 2880. Thank you to everyone who weighed in on this issue for sending a strong message that the abuse of intellectual property laws can harm many different sectors of society, and that preventing those abuses needs to be a top priority for our lawmakers. Thanks also to Assemblymember Mark Stone for listening and responding to Californians’ concerns with this bill.
Well done!
Mike
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org