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 &lt;tvol(a)creativecommons.org&gt; 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(a)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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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=20…