Talk:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


the language of the statute implies no geographical restriction[edit]

I removed

However, the language of the statute implies no geographical restriction on its denial of copyright protection to U.S. government works as it says, "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government…."<ref>{{USC|17|105}}</ref>

from the article, and someone without saying so in the edit summary reverted it. It's not properly cited, as we don't cite primary sources. And it's wrong; it says "copyright protection under this title", but this title only applies to the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Kill it. It's very clear that "this Title" refers to Title I of the 94th Congress's S. 22/H.R. 2233 (which was eventually enacted as the 1976 Copyright Act); and a reference to copyright under "this Title" is not a reference to any non-U.S. law. So, the comment above sentence you quote, to the extent that it is trying to counter the prior passage (as it begins "However...") is wrong. But in any event, more than wrong, it's someone's original interpretation of the statute; it's WP:OR and has no place in the article. The preceding sentence is sufficiently clear without it; and the reference it points to is unambiguous.
If you really want to make the point, House Report No. 94-1476 says unambiguously
The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. Works of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted. There are no valid policy reasons for denying such protection to United States Government works in foreign countries, or for precluding the Government from making licenses for the use of its works abroad.
TJRC (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I've made the edit. TJRC (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, if no protection in the country of origin it means - no protection in any country that do apply the "rule of the shorter term" that's the point --RussianTrooper (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
No. First, you're confusing two distinct things. You're confusing the concept of whether a particular work falls within the scope of copyright with the concept of the term of a work that is subject to copyright. Second, and more importantly for Wikipedia purposes, your interpretation here is your own original research, and Wikipedia is not the place to publish it. Now, if you have a reliable source that makes this claim -- for example, a law review article -- and it's not a fringe view, it can be included with appropriate citation to that source. TJRC (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Works Made for Hire for the US Government[edit]

§ 201 (b) Works Made for Hire. — In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.

-US Copyright Statute

So, I'm reading a NASA-hosted and funded Law Review article, Copyright in Government Works and it reviews legislative and case history and goes into some detail as to situations where Works Made for Hire for the US Government under the statute are not subject to copyright even if author was not an "employee" or "officer". The author notes that the work made for hire "expression includes both employees and independent contractors on special order or commission".

Also, bespoke software written for the USG is "unlimited rights data," NOT "computer software developed at private expense and that is a trade secret". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talkcontribs) 28 May 2013

I think that John Tresansky, the author of this law review article, is reading the House Report 94-1476 a little carelessly. Here's what the report actually says:
Although the wording of the definition of “work of the United States Government” differs somewhat from that of the definition of “work made for hire,” the concepts are intended to be construed in the same way.
But here's how Trensansky interprets it:
Although the definition of “work of the United States Government” differs somewhat from that of the definition of “work made for hire,” the concepts are intended to be construed in the same way.
The Report is talking about specific wording in the definitions, not the entire definitions. The text that follows in the Report makes clear that the part of the definition being discussed is the part that is common to both definitions: "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties" in "work of the United States Government"; and "prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment" in "work made for hire." As you can see in the actual report, after that discussion it continues with the issue of contractors, and states that the WotUSG does not parallel WMFH:
"A more difficult and far-reaching problem is whether the definition should be broadened to prohibit copyright in works prepared under U.S. Government contract or grant.... The bill deliberately avoids making any sort of outright, unqualified prohibition against copyright in works prepared under Government contractor grant." (There's more, but that gets the gist.)
Tresansky's article is interesting, but the only real bit it authoritatively discusses is whether a work is one that is "part of that person’s official duties" (analog to "within the scope of his or her employment"). His basic thesis is that a work needs to be within the scope of employment to qualify as a WotUSG; and that's not all that controversial. He gives a couple examples of cases where the work in question was held not to be within the scope (and more where it was held to be within the scope). He's basically arguing (as a government employee, quelle surprise) that some works are outside the scope of employment and that government employees may have more rights to assert copyright than generally believed. He does a lot of hand-waving and arguing by analogy to patent cases (which is a very imperfect analogy, given that there is no equivalent prohibition on the U.S. government obtaining patents) to make his case.
I agree with your analysis.--Elvey (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Elvey, I note that you added a {{dubious}} tag in the passage on the FAR general data rights clause. Is this discussion related to that? Because that passage is not an issue of what the statute says, as discussed in the Tresansky article; it's an issue of what the clause incorporated in the government-contractor agreement says. TJRC (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I said:
Also, bespoke software written for the USG is "unlimited rights data," NOT "computer software developed at private expense and that is a trade secret", and was referring to the clause in the FAR. Separate issue. I can make an article edit to more clearly show what I think is in error, by fixing it. Done. --Elvey (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Works Made for Hire for the US state Governments etc[edit]

TJRC, you dispute that "The copyrightability of state and municipal government works is not determined by the federal government. A few states and their local governments cannot hold copyright in most of their works, but most can." and claim that "copyright is determined exclusively by federal law, not state law"! But the linked page supports me not you, as does PD-FLGov, which is more clear. In particular, Florida's Constitution and its statutes do not permit public records to be copyrighted unless the (state) legislature specifically states they can be. OTOH, works made by NY can be copyrighted, according to NY law. Please put back what you removed or something like it. In the mean time, I'll blank the section, leaving just the link to the main page. --Elvey (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and your reverting this seems careless seemed to be in error, TJRC. --Elvey (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Elvey, you're removing content that is well-sourced and citing the U.S. Copyright Office as authority. You're adding unsourced and incorrect statements that copyright is determined by state law, and that has not been the case for 35 years. In the United States, copyright is (with the exception of pre-1972 sound recordings), exclusively federal law. To the extent any state law purports to change copyright law, that is preempted by section 301.
Your template is not a source. I think you're misunderstanding it in any event. Here's the correct way to understand it. Federal law governs copyright. Under federal law, works of the United States government are not subject to copyright under section 105. The Section 105 limitation is exclusive to the federal government, and does not apply to state governments.
A state's works (subject to certain exceptions, e.g. edicts of government) are subject to copyright. A state, like any other copyright owner, can choose to do what it wishes with its copyrights; including deciding to assert them or deciding to abandon them. Florida has largely apparently chosen to abandon its copyrights.
However that is no different than you, as a copyright owner, deciding to abandon your copyrights. Regardless, under U.S. copyright law, those works are subject to copyright, and the edits you are making are extremely misleading in suggesting that they are not.
If you want to include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law, I have no objection to that; but you should not misstate the law as you've been doing.
With respect to this edit, it is incorrect, and reverting it is appropriate. Your text is "The non-copyright rule ... does apply to 'organized territories' under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government." As the Copyright Office document cited says, "Works of the governments of the 'organized territories' under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government are acceptable for registration under the rule." That is, the non-copyright rule does not apply to organized territories; their works are accepted for copyright registration.
With respect to this edit, it is incorrect, and reverting it is appropriate. Your text is "The non-copyright rule ... does apply to 'organized territories' under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government." As the Copyright Office document cited says, "Works of the governments of the 'organized territories' under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government are acceptable for registration under the rule." That is, the non-copyright rule does not apply to organized territories; their works are accepted for copyright registration. (add: see more below)
I'm reinstating the long-standing text. Not only is it correct, but under WP:BRD, you have been bold but been reverted, and it is now up to you to make your case via discussion. TJRC (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
With respect to the organized territories, there's a page-break in the Compendium that makes it look like the sentence ends where ai quoted it above, but it actually goes on: "Works of the governments of the 'organized territories' under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government are acceptable for registration under the rule of doubt." What this means is that the CO is not taking a position on whether section 105 applies to "organized territories"; it will accept the registration, but leave to the courts a determination of whether section 105 precludes copyrights. For unorganized territories, it goes on: "Works of the governments of other territorial areas under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Government are considered to be U.S. Government works." This is probably a wrinkle worth adding. TJRC (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC) (add: I've now added that, with appropriate citations.) TJRC (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
(Note inline replys formerly above now here:)
Your central point is valid, but wow, there are a lot of wild accusations there too! A lot of straw men, e.g. of course "my" template is not a WP:RS; no template is (and perhaps with a few irrelevant exceptions, no wikipedia page is). But it does cite and reference reliable sources that back me up.
You've provided no evidence that there is only one correct way to understand it, though the way you have outlined - treating the state as copyright owner like any other - seems to be a valid way of seeing it. But how 'bout we simplymove forward, rather than argue, as we both think it's fine to just
"include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law"!
Cool? How 'bout we copy some text and sources from Copyright status of work by the Florida government? --Elvey (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC) (restored 08:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC))
Oops. (See below.)
"non-copyright rule" is a what? Google doesn't know. A made-up term? With what shall we replace it?--Elvey (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC) (restored 08:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC))
It seems you were skimming/rushing, but finally read 206.02e IN FULL and realized you chopped off "of doubt".
You seem to have missed the rest of it at first:
"Works of the governments of other territorial areas under the jurisdiction of the u.s. Government are considered to be u.s. Government works."
It looks like you concede that these U.S. Government works are NOT accepted for copyright registration. How 'bout we simply state that?
Oops: I seem to have missed the organized vs unorganized territory (e.g. American Samoa), so [my edit] was indeed wrong. Yes, there should be a wrinkle for each. How 'bout we include the links ( organized , unorganized territory )?†
Lastly: You seem to have been skimming/rushing as you didn't address my edit summaries which state that I moved the content to Copyright status of work by U.S. state governments; I didn't simply delete it! Did you think I had?† How else do you explain your accusation that I was "removing content that is well-sourced and citing the U.S. Copyright Office as authority"† --Elvey (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC) (restored 08:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC))

"Inaccurate"/"confusing" tags[edit]

Elvey, you've repeatedly tagged the "State, territorial and local governments" section twice with an "accuracy" tag, then with a "confusing" tag. Please describe what it is you find confusing.

The article is about the doctrine that works of the US government are not within the subject matter of copyright, under the doctrine now codified in § 105. This article discusses the extent of that doctrine, and this section is part of that, including that it does not apply to state/municipality works, which are under a different government; and the extent to which is has been settled (or not) with respect to territories. The {{for}} template directs readers to the other article, where they can read about how individual state, etc. jurisdictions choose to treat their own copyrights; which is a separate subject from eligibility for copyright under § 105.

Are you taking the position that an explanation of what is not covered by § 105 may not be in the article?

Please note, many of your discussions with me and with others, here and elsewhere have been hostile and incivil. I am not interesting in participating in a discussion of that type. If you are unable to discuss this civilly, I will not engage in the discussion.

As noted above, please respond below existing comments, and do not edit directly within my comments. TJRC (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

What part of my previous comment do you not understand?

Lastly: You seem to have been skimming/rushing as you didn't address my edit summaries which state that I moved the content to Copyright status of work by U.S. state governments; I didn't simply delete it! Did you think I had?--Elvey (talk) 2:46 pm, 30 May 2013, Thursday (1 month, 30 days ago) (UTC−7) (restored 08:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)) Hello? Look! (Bump Elvey (talk))

--Elvey (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Elvey: Please identify what you find confusing in that passage. TJRC (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you dispute that you ignore my questions, revert me and demand I answer yours? I told you why I placed the tags. Multiple times. Multiple ways. Respond. Shame on you. Your actions are hostile and uncivil. Hostile is reverting the tag and not discussing at all, and then reluctantly reverting and then discussing. Civil is leaving the tag in place until the issue has been discussed.
The article is about "Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government", in my view. Not what you say it is. If it was purely about § 105 then the title would be § 105.
And answer my questions. Instead of answering my questions, YOU'VE DELETED THEM FROM THIS PAGE! I'm wondering what sort of problem would cause you to delete my questions of you from this talk page. --Elvey (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Elvey: your tag says you believe that section to be confusing. Please explain what you find to be confusing. It's not any more complicated than that. TJRC (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
For the 6th time, Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government; they are subnational entities. --Elvey (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, great. Thank you. Now let's talk about how that might be confusing. The fact is worth including, because it makes clear the extent of the prohibition of works of the USG being subject to the exclusion.
Because DC is the seat of the U.S. government, someone interested in the scope of the prohibition may wish to know whether DC is within that scope. The article includes the fact that it is not, to address that question.
Similarly, a reader may wish to know about territories such as Puerto Rico. The section addresses that, too. It says that unorganized territories are treated as USG works (at least by the Copyright Office); but organized territories such as Puerto Rico are treated as independent of the USG.
In both cases, I think the text is clear and not confusing. Is there a wording change you suggest to clarify it? TJRC (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government; they are subnational entities. Therefore, they don't belong in Copyright status of work by the U.S. government, and the fact that they're discussed there anyway is what's confusing because they belong, rather, in Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments It's that simple. Will you admit that Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government, but rather are subnational entities? --Elvey (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
To the extent that those arguments make any sense, they justify including information on CA and FL more than DC and PR, as I've said before. As I've said, California and Florida are part of the U.S., so someone interested in the copyright status of work by the U.S. government may wish to know about them. The article includes no information but a pointer, although these states are far far more populous / influential.
A reader may wish to know about territories such as Puerto Rico or DC can read the other article; it's relatively minor info, AND doesn't belong, here based on the name of this article. The the other article addresses all that, about DC and PR too. The other article also says that unorganized territories are treated as USG works (at least by the Copyright Office); but organized territories such as Puerto Rico are treated as independent of the USG…
Your insistence that the DC and PR info belongs in both articles AND that the CA and FL info flies in the face of these arguments. --Elvey (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the governments of Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. government for purposes of the section 105 exclusion of US government works for purposes of copyright. (They are not states, and there may be some intertwining of governmental functions in other areas; I'm not expressing any comment on that.) But that does not mean that the scope of the exclusion should not be made clear. It's made clear with respect to states in the opening sentence, and states aren't USG for 105 purposes, either.
It is worth including because it clarifies the scope of the exclusion.
The exclusion of US government works from copyright protection is an actual exclusion from the subject matter of copyright; This is a completely different question than what a particular state opts to do with its own copyrights, which is the subject of your other article, which I intend to stay clear of. TJRC (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
This article is (obviously) about Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. IMO, details of the copyright status of work NOT by the U.S. government that is covered in the appropriate article on subnational entities don't belong HERE. Will you admit that the other article provides well-cited and accurate information on the copyright status of work by the governments of Puerto Rico and DC? --Elvey (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello? TJRC (talk · contribs) You have time to complain today that I "will not enter into a civil discussion", but you won't reply to the above? Who is it who "will not engage in a civil discussion" again? Fine, I'll put back my content. --Elvey (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
First: stop with the inflammatory language. I'm sick of "accused" and "do you admit." Start behaving civilly. Are you reading nothing in the AN/I?
Second, the fact that I do not leap to respond to you and invite more of your abuse and invective in no way indicates that your edits are correct or justified. Believe it or not, editors have more going on in their lives than responding to petulant incivil people like you. Given the choice between helping my six-year-old with her piano lessons, or dealing with you, believe me, it's no contest. You have no priority in my life.
Third, your preferred text has been reverted by two other editors, Prosfilaes (talk · contribs) and myself. Your lone-wolf version in no way represents a consensus.
Finally, the content of the other article is immaterial to the content here. This article is about the exclusion of works of the United States government from the subject matter of copyright, including the limits, qualifications and definitions of that. The issue of whether DC, PR and individual states' governments are within the scope of that limit is within the scope of that topic. That's why the Copyright Office and other authorities deal with it in those discussions. However, once that issue is dealt with, and it is made clear that those governments are not within those limits, further discussion of those government works is not material. In sum whether such works are within the scope of the limitation is within the scope of a discussion of the limitation. TJRC (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know where to begin. For now, what is your problem with this edit? Also, please just answer the question I asked nicely : Will you admit that the other article provides well-cited and accurate information on the copyright status of work by the governments of Puerto Rico and DC? --Elvey (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Your argument above is perverse. You define this article to be "about the exclusion of works of the United States government from the subject matter of copyright, including the limits, qualifications and definitions of that." But that's just YOUR definition. As I've said before, that's not what the title says, but here you are again, ignoring the title and presenting your notions of what the article is about as fact, and using those notions to justify the inclusions and exclusions you prefer. You've defined the article subject in a way that makes your boundaries valid, but that's perverse because you don't get do do that defining for anyone but yourself, doing more would be OR. You act as if your definition is the only valid one. --Elvey (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If you look at the text of the article from its inception, you'll see that that has always been its focus. It's had some oddities in there, like the heraldry stuff, but it's pretty much always been about the doctrine that works of the U.S. government are ineligible for copyright.

The title of the article does not determine its contents; it's the other way around. Arguably, the title here is slightly misdescriptive. The label Congress used for this subject is "Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works," but that's cumbersome and not very clear to non-specialists who might not know what "subject matter" means in a legislative sense. The Joyce textbook (Joyce, Leaffler, Jaszi, Ochoa & Carroll, Copyright Law, 9th edition) uses just "U.S. Government Works" as a section name (in a chapter entitled "Prerequisites for Copyright Protection"). Nimmer's treatise uses "Works of the United States Government" (in the chapter "Copyright Entitlement").

As far as I know, every significant copyright authority treats it this way. I've mentioned Nimmer and Joyce already; they each treat it this way. I don't have a copy of or access to the Goldstein treatise, but looking on the excerpt provided on Google books, it looks like he does as well. And, you've seen the Compendium II treatment. (A couple I looked at have no substantial discussion: I was surprised to see Marshall Leaffer's book Understanding Copyright Law barely discusses it, with only a one-line footnote. The Nimmer/Marcus/Meyers/Nimmer textbook (Cases and Materials on Copyright; as distinguished from the Nimmers' treatise) appears not to discuss it at all.)

Just to go back to the basics, do you realize that, other than one (well, possibly 2 or 3, depending on what you count) minor exception, states do not have the authority to enact copyright laws? That factor makes the pronouncements of the federal government and the states (or other subnational governments) very different in character. The federal rule is a matter of copyright law; it takes the universe of things that are actually subject to copyright in the United States, and slices works of the US government out of that. It removes US government works from the sphere of works that are copyrightable (I don't like using that word, because it really isn't meaningful post-1978, but it's convenient shorthand). In contrast, a state is completely without power to determine what is and is not copyrightable; the only power it has is to determine what it will do with the copyrights that it is entitled to assert.

On the question of whether the other article discusses Puerto Rico and DC; yes, it seems to. But again, that has no impact on the content of this article. Given that this article is about copyright status of works of the U.S. government, it remains material to this article because it addresses the question "what constitutes a work of the U.S. government such that it falls within the prohibition that is the topic of this article?" TJRC (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As the title of the article is not consistent with your theories as to what this article is about, they just aren't terribly relevant, but feel free to come up with and seek consensus for a title change that makes the US' abandonment of its copyrights under international copyright law on topic, but ,US states' abandonment of their copyrights under US copyright law off topic. How about you answer the questions I asked of you that remain unanswered that I've just tagged with with a cross ('†')? These are questions that you deleted several times. As they're now undeleted, and bottom-posted, as per your insistence, I think it behooves you to answer them. Later, we can, "go back to the basics" as you suggest - and "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law," as you also suggest. --Elvey (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll address the question that pertains to improvement of the article: "How 'bout we include the links ( organized , unorganized territory )?†" That's a good suggestion; let's go for it.
Any other suggestions, or can we remove the hatnote now? TJRC (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
If you're not going to discuss things, then don't don't revert; to do do is to edit war. Specifically: I edited, adding the comment,
Per TJRC's TP suggestion that we "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law."
I edited per your suggestion. And yet: Your response was (diff):
Reverted to revision 569514616 by TJRC: Revert to the version approved by two editors; Elvey is the lone wolf here. (TW)
A reminder: WP:!VOTE says, "[!VOTE] serves as a cute little reminder that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important."
Should I not take you on your word when you suggested we "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law" - - then what?--Elvey (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, my goodness. I responded to your suggestion "How 'bout we include the links ( organized , unorganized territory )?†" That that was a good idea, go ahead and make that edit.
I did not say or imply to go ahead and make all your other edits inserting unrelated stuff about works that are not works of the US government and to delete the sourced material already there. Prosfilaes and I have each objected to this. You are the only one trying to shove your pet material from Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments into this article. Please stop it. You have no consensus to so so.
As I said, your good idea is to link Organized incorporated territories and unorganized territory. That's a good edit (in fact the second part is already in there). TJRC (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I hope that a third party will let us know if I've been telling the truth when I've said that you've said that it's fine if I "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law", or if you were telling the truth when you say you didn't! There's a diff to the relevant edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=573851388#User:TJRC_reported_by_User:Elvey_.28Result:_.29 Do you still deny saying it, even now that there's a diff for you to look at, that shows you said it?
Since you keep reverting my edits even after agreeing to such edits, I'm not going to add the organized, unorganized territory as I expect it would end up opening yet another front in the current edit war. Please add them yourself. Thus far, it appears that your ownership of the article is such that no wording that I can come up with is acceptable to you, and that your response to whatever wording I contribute is to revert, instead of refactor/improve. Suggested reading: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?RefactoringWikiPages --Elvey (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hatnote[edit]

Can we please have a hatnote on this article directing interested readers to Wikipedia's rules about copying from sources published by the US federal government. I'm trying to look for it but this article is as close as I've got so far... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added the most relevant link I could find. Addendum: Actually, there's already in link in the See also (WP:PDOMG) that seems to be related to this. I've added it to the hatnote as well. — Reatlas (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

WARNING[edit]

WARNING: this page may be missing content. TJRC has repeatedly deleted my comments from the page: diff, then diff, then diff and later diff. I've restored them, as he's not undoing a TPO violation by deleting my comments. LOOK AT THE EDITS HE MADE. THEY'RE NOT REMOVING ANY SORT OF INTERRUPTION! TJRC refused to fix the mess he created, so I have done so, by restoring the comments he and I have made since then, without deleting my comments. --Elvey (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC) (updated with add'l and later diffs: 17:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC))

For the last round of reverts, it would help if you didn't add commented-out comments to the page, as that breaks the basic goal of being able to read the talk page without having to go into edit mode. When there's energetic disagreement, being willfully unclear is not helpful at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I hear you accusing me of being willfully unclear… is that your intent? Are you saying that TJRC's umpteen and at times surreptitious removals of my comments were somehow acceptable? Both of you seem incapable of admitting to your mistakes. --Elvey (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, adding comments that only appear when you read the page source is being willfully unclear. Given that you've deleted his comments a number of times, you don't exactly have clean hands here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
At least you see that TJRC's umpteen and at times surreptitious removals of my comments were unacceptable. Are you saying that you can provide a diff that shows me performing an edit that involved deleting your/his comments surreptitiously or in violation of policy? I don't believe you can, but feel free to provide evidence to back your accusation of unclean hands. I have no doubt you can provide a diff that shows me performing a revert that involved deleting your/his comments in conformance with policy, however - because the revert was simultaneously restoring my own comments that he had deleted. Besides, I recall you swore off this feud, but here you go again. You have an uncanny ability to fail to see the obvious: the comment you claim to be concerned about and claim was willfully unclear starts off with <!-- Commenting out excess verbiage. If you are trying to equate it to his many deletions, your judgement is severely impaired. --Elvey (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Taking the first diff you complain about above and going back one shows you [1], where you deleted an entire section of discussion in your so-called policy-conformant reverts. If it's excess verbiage, then it shouldn't be added to the talk page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks! You proved me right when I wrote, "I have no doubt you can provide a diff that shows me performing a revert that involved deleting your/his comments in conformance with policy, however - because the revert was simultaneously restoring my own comments that he had deleted." To the extent that you have shown me I should act differently in future or must act differently per policy, I will endeavor to do so. To the extent that you or I have shown TJRC he should act differently in future or must act differently per policy, I have reason to think he will not endeavor to do so. --Elvey (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
You deleted an entire section of discussion. I don't care what policy says; you've made it impossible to discuss things with, because you delete whatever you want, when you want, and blame someone else.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussions during Page Protection[edit]

I've just protected the page due to the edit warring. Please discuss the matter here or seek dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Protection expired - please heed WP:BRD[edit]

Good day,

In order to avoid another round of full protection, editors are reminded to adhere, strictly, to the principle of Bold, Revert, Discuss when editing existing content. For the purpose of clarity, the present revision at the time of this writing should be considered the starting point of a WP:BRD cycle.

Last but not least, this talk page is peppered with comments directed at other editors that serve no editorial purpose. Editors are encouraged to focus on content, not each other, and concentrate on improving the article for the benefit of Wikipedia's readers. MLauba (Talk) 12:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, I have been struggling thru some of these same issues with my work on the Wiki-project United States Government articles ( see my [page]. Finally, I was able to locate a legal briefing on FOIA and public domain for one of the Federal agencies that uses contractors for agency services. It says they are considered to be employees of the government and therefore, their work is public domain. I have uploaded this material onto Wikisource. (See the article.) I would propose rewriting the section in this Wikipedia article to recognize that in Federal procurements there are instances where materials provided by contractors remain the contractor's intellectual property (such as software code, etc.) and there are those where the contractor's product becomes public domain. Risk Engineer (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

California and Florida- inaccurate wording?[edit]

The section State, territorial and local governments states "Notably, the constitutions and laws of California and Florida have placed their government's works in the public domain." However, the relevent sections in Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments only refer to "public records", which may not be identical to "government work". If they are equivalent under the law, this should be clarified. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)