Talk:Swedish National Board of Institutional Care

CorenSearchBot
Removing automated copyright warning notice. This is a Swedish government agency website, nothing they write can be copyrighted, according to Swedish law. Also, I've made sufficient changes to not warrant any problems even if this wasn't the case. This bot is far too sensitive... Gavleson (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Last time this bot had tagged some old article to be copyvio. Just don't panic ;-)  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Gavleson. :) Can you please provide a link that indicates that Swedish government works can't be copyrighted? According to, for instance, content on that official website can only be used non-commercially, which is not a license we would be able to accept. Alas, I can't find anything about it in this pdf. This one does not exclude all works by Swedish government agencies, although it does explicitly exclude the following: (1) laws and other regulations, (2) decisions by public authorities, (3) reports by Swedish public authorities, and (4) translations of 1-3. It seems like if all works of Swedish government agencies were excluded from copyright, they might not point out those specifics, but I'd be interested in seeing the language that indicates otherwise. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe "nothing can be copyrighted" was a bit rash, but the "letter of appropriation" (regleringsbrev) and ordinances issued by the Government (förordning), which states the general activities and overall objectives of an agency is surely not copyrightable. These are written in a surprisingly accessible language, not legalese, and it seems like a lot of what's found on Swedish government agency websites in English are translations of these documents. I've noticed some sentences having been word for word, and I have a hard time believing that it is copyrightable or something to worry about, and find it strange that I would have to rephrase myself. Anyhow, the text in this article has nevertheless changed since it was originally tagged, but feel free to delete it if you still think this is a problem. Alas, I've frankly lost interest and don't particularly care anymore... :c Gavleson (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)