Talk:Copyright status of works by the government of Florida

Accuracy

According to [1], "MyFlorida.com is owned and operated by THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES (referred to as "DMS" herein). No material from MyFlorida.com or any Web site owned, operated, licensed or controlled by THE STATE OF FLORIDA or DMS may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way. Materials may be downloaded on any single personal computer, for non-commercial use only providing all copyright and other proprietary notices are kept intact. Modification of the materials or use of the materials for any other purpose is a violation of THE STATE OF FLORIDA and DMS's copyright and other proprietary rights. For purposes of this Agreement, the use of any such material on any other Web site or networked computer environment is prohibited. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are proprietary to THE STATE OF FLORIDA and DMS." Hence, the State of Florida is claiming copyright of materials produced in "official business by...[a] state, county, district, or other unit of government created or established by law of the Government of Florida" (to quote the article's face). I note, too, that myflorida.com bears a clear notice: Copyright 2008 State of Florida. Likewise, the Florida State Department asserts that it is "Copyright © 2001-2009. State of Florida, Department of State." Please provide specific language from statute to verify that the State of Florida is wrong. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The text of the statute suggests to me that this article may be based on a confusion between the terms "public record" and "public domain". Florida permits access to public records, but it does not release the text for modification and reuse, as it would have to do if the material were public domain. The statute page itself says, "Copyright © 1995-2009 The Florida Legislature". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding Copyright notices to a website is S.O.P., however, this does not demonstrate that the Copyright claim is accurate or enforceable. In Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, 889 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (Findlaw) Copy, The Second District, Court of Appeal, State of Florida, the Court appears to rule that the copyright claim is invalid. Gamweb (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not based on a statute; it is based on a Florida court decision on a case involving copyright of public records. Most states allow such copyright, however, the Florida courts ruled that Florida law does not generally allow it, unless there are statutes with specific authorizations for copyright for specific types of public records. The ruling is linked in the tag; there is absolutely no confusion if you read its conclusion. This was a Florida district court decision, but the Florida Supreme Court declined to hear the case (see here) and there was an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, who also declined to hear the case (see here, under "Certiorari Denied"). The decision appears to be binding in Florida, and is cited in many places. Here is a Florida Senate document which goes into a lot of detail on the situation and lists some of the known exceptions where copyright is retained; it was recommending extending specific legislation to let agencies own copyright in some software they had written. Some other items may be copyrighted if there is a Florida statute (by 2/3 decision) which specifically allows copyright, and some agencies may have delegated authority to claim copyright. It might be good to list those known exceptions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. While waiting to hear from Mike Godwin (our position: no official position), I lost track of this conversation. I would suggest, then, that we might want to expand this article to explain the legal background, including detailing information on this lawsuit, which would bring it into accord with WP:V. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you still disputing something? If so, what? --Elvey (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There can be no dispute: the facts are backed by sound, reliable, and verifiable source. (Mainly, the Government of Florida.) Since the original disputer has rescinded claims of dispute, I am removing the disputed tag. Int21h (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Quote the constitution?

How 'bout including this quote from the constitution in the article? :

The Florida constitution states:

"(a) Every person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf, except with respect to records exempted pursuant to this section or specifically made confidential by this Constitution. This section specifically includes the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and each agency or department created thereunder; counties, municipalities, and districts; and each constitutional officer, board, and commission, or entity created pursuant to law or this Constitution." Readers can follow the link to read parts (c) and (d), which defines the records exempted.--Elvey (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's sufficient. The Florida courts may have determined that "public record" is the same as "public domain", but they are not universally synonymous. For example, in the United Kingdom, "The reproduction of photo-copies, verbatim transcripts or literal translation of records in the Public Record Office may infringe copyright."Cavendish, J.M. (1984). A handbook of copyright in British publishing practice (2 ed.). Cassell. p. 66. ISBN 0304310670.. Determining who owns copyright to public records and which ones are public domain in the UK can be complicated (see [2]. For example, "Many Public Records are not Crown copyright protected and users wishing to reproduce such material remain responsible for determining where ownership of the copyright rests and for obtaining the appropriate consents from the legal copyright holders.") See also Wikipedia:PD#Public records. Simply quoting the constitution referring to "public records" does not indicate why, in this case, public records may be legally public domain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Sufficient for what? I said "including". See the change I made to Template:PD-FLGov. Besides, UK copyright is presumptivly entirely irrelevant to an article on copyright of FL gov't work. --Elvey (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That is the right of inspection; which doesn't (necessarily) imply fully copyright (derivative works or commercial works). Most (if not all) other U.S. states have decided that way. In particular, the "or received" part would not be subject to the FLGov license, since copyright would still be held by third parties. I would remove that part from the license. Additionally, there are also 5-10 agencies which are permitted to copyright their works (including the Department of State), so the license would not apply to their works, and those should be listed -- it is a fairly substantial list. See this document, page 4. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"That"? What? I don't understand your first 3 sentences. WRT #4, I think it would be better to describe what those exceptions are for. IIRC (I read that report a while ago) they are all to protect symbols that are used to indicate official action - e.g. that fruit met a regulation inspection, something was produced by the state, etc. So something like "The exceptions are generally to protect symbols that are used to indicate official action" would IMO be better than a list that could grow stale and would be impossible to verify as complete.--Elvey (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Public record" is not synonymous with "public domain." The UK copyright is evidence of that. The quote from the constitution does not verify public domain in the absence of the court case that interpreted it in that way. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

UK copyright is evidence of nothing is the context of Florida law. (American common law and British common law have diverged significantly since America decided that the people are the source of their government's authority around 1776.) Some pompous feudal Lords' musings on the lowly commoner's rights is of no concern here. And yes, the court have interpreted it in that way (See my comments below.) Int21h (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a question of terminology. "Public record" is not synonymous with "public domain", as Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines note. Articles are written for readers anywhere, including those who are governed by pompous feudal Lords. This is why, as I said above, "Simply quoting the constitution referring to "public records" does not indicate why, in this case, public records may be legally public domain." This edit of yours helps to address some of that. More detail on that court case here would probably be useful, since it is evidently the landmark case for determining that in Florida "public record" evidently is interpreted to mean "public domain", if not in England or some other parts of the United States. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"That" meaning the constitutional quote. Most U.S. states (UK law is not directly applicable) claim copyright on all works (including public records) created by the state (and copyright is always still held on public records created by others; those can not be used under the FLGov license). Copyright includes not only the right to make copies, but the right to prevent derivative works and commercial gain. Public records merely mean that the public has a right to *inspect* the works (and realistically, probably make copies) but in no way implies those other rights. Copyrighted material used as evidence in court cases most definitely does not lose its copyright even though it becomes a public record. Florida's courts have apparently decided that by default public records, if created by the government, are in fact public domain copyright-wise, contrary to most other states which still keep copyright over works they create. As the document I linked to points out though, the ruling also allows the Florida government to pass specific laws allowing either certain departments to keep copyright over their works, or to allow all government agencies to keep copyright over certain types of work. The copyright status is therefore still a decision of the legislature and is not mandated by the state constitution (I think the ruling was based more on the actual public records law, and not just the constitutional wording). And in fact, they have passed a number of laws allowing several departments to keep their copyright. One is the Department of State, which does run a lot of their websites, so a lot of material is definitely not copyright-free. Additionally, there are laws meaning that works created by the Department of the Lottery, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Citrus, water management districts, and the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research are all still copyrighted, as well as projects of the Florida Space Authority, plus computer software, and instructional materials and their ancillary written documents made by any government department. Those are all cited in that document. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not just the right of inspection, but "for the purpose of inspection thereof, and of making extracts therefrom." (Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, page 7.) That's an important difference, and kind of has something to do with the "copy" and "rights" parts of "copyrights". As per the "which doesn't (necessarily) imply fully copyright (derivative works or commercial works)" comment, again, your wrong. The Microdecisions case clearly stated "Since 1905, it has been clear that public records may be used in a commercial, profit-making business without the payment of additional fees." (Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, page 7.) As per the "Most (if not all) other U.S. states have decided that way." comment, I can only find three such cases: Microdecisions, County of Santa Clara v. CFAC, and County of Suffolk v. First American Real Estate Solutions, 261 F.3d 179 (2001). That's only three, and its 2:1 in public domain's favor. (So I guess your right. :) As per the "Public records merely mean that the public has a right to *inspect* the works ... but in no way implies those other rights" comment, again, no. In Florida it also applies to making copies with no strings attached, ie no license. The relevant Microdecisions quote is:

As such, a

copyright owner may refuse to provide copies of the work or may charge whatever fee he wants for copies of the work or a license to use the work. The Florida public records law, on the other hand, requires State and local agencies to make their records available to the public for the cost of reproduction. § 119.07(1)(a). This mandate overrides a governmental agency's ability to claim a copyright in its work unless the legislature has expressly authorized a public records exemption. See Art. I. § 24, Fla. Const.; see also Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 03-42 (2003) (stating that in the absence of statutory authorization and "in light of Florida's Public Records Law, Palm Beach County is not authorized to obtain copyright protection and require license agreements for its Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and related data in order to regulate and authorize redistribution of these materials for commercial use"); Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 88- 23 (1988) (reciting that State Attorneys may not, without statutory authority, assert copyright in training films they produced); accord Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 00-13 (2000) ("[A] state agency is not authorized to secure or hold a trademark in the absence of specific

statutory authority to do so.")

— Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, page 9.

As per your "copyright would still be held by third parties" and "Copyrighted material used as evidence in court cases most definitely does not lose its copyright even though it becomes a public record" quotes: a plain reading of the statute and Constitution would certainly disagree, as it obviously says "or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business". As for the rest of it, I look forward to seeing a citation in the article. And good find on the exemptions list! Keep up the hard work! Int21h (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Statutory and constitutional law defines public records quite clearly. (Constitution Article I, §24(a); Florida Statutes §119.011(12); Florida Statutes §119.01(1)) The common law holds that public records cannot be copyrighted by the state quite clearly. (Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner holding "Skinner has no authority to assert copyright protection in ... public records" and "[t]his mandate overrides a governmental agency's ability to claim a copyright in its work unless the legislature has expressly authorized a public records exemption" referring to the mandate of the people that public records be freely available.) Therefore, if it meets the classification of "public record", it is not not copyright-able, unless exempted.

The question then only falls on whether it is (a) a public record and (b) is exempted by statute. If a public record cannot be copyrighted by the state (i.e. is not specifically exempted), then it holds that it is in the public domain because (a) the creator cannot claim copyright, (b) the creator cannot transfer copyright because that would require they at least temporarily hold copyright, and (c) a third party cannot claim copyright on something they did not create or acquire copyright on. Int21h (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Lest it be lost in the length here, I've responded to you further up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not. The court decision merely says the government is not allowed (by default) to hold copyright on public records; it says nothing about third-party copyright holders. The government would not be claiming copyright in those anyways. Information received certainly becomes a public record, but its copyright ownership does not change. The constitution says nothing about copyright of public records -- obviously not, because it is still quite allowed if the legislature decides it should be (which it could not if it was constitutionally forbidden). The court case is the main driver here, and it applies only to public records created by the government, because those are the only works where the government would otherwise have been the copyright holder. The court decision specifically says "in its [government's] work", and not the work of others. Becoming a public record in no way implies a copyright transfer (which by federal law requires a signed, written agreement); works owned by third parties retain their copyright even if they are public records. Copyright owners can still prevent derivative works and commercial use; the court ruling just says the government can't be the copyright owner in many cases. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agre with Carl's and Gamweb's comments so far on this page. I'm happy with the page as is, but mention of Copyfraud could improve it.--Elvey (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Public Domain Tag

Just putting this somewhere easy to find: Frank0051 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Copyright status of work by the Florida government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050504204411/http://www.2dca.org/opinion/December%2001,%202004/2D03-3346.pdf to http://www.2dca.org/opinion/December%2001,%202004/2D03-3346.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

---

• Copyright status of work by the Florida government → Copyright status of works by the government of Florida
• Copyright status of work by the U.S. government → Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States
• Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments → Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States

– There are a few reasons for this move request. Firstly, work should be pluralized because it is unnatural to use work as a singular when referring to a work by someone. See here. Secondly, I don't see U.S. in article titles. For example, the article on the U.S. government is called Federal government of the United States with U.S. government redirecting there. The article on the Florida government is called Government of Florida with Florida government redirecting there. Based on the principles of consistency here, I believe these articles should be moved. Thirdly, the article on the U.S. government copyright status is about works of the federal government, not works of subnational governments. Based on the principle of precision here, this is also another reason why this article should be moved. Please leave your comments below. Also, if you have any questions for me, please leave them down below. I will be watching this page. Mstrojny (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The proposed titles are clearer and more natural. bd2412 T 02:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.