Template talk:PD-CAGov/Archive 2

Do NOT remove this template
Removal would cause User:OrphanBot to remove several public domain images. This would undo the hard work of myself and several other people. Please don't remove this template. Dananderson 18:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I could see redirecting to disputed license or unclear license (except that those templates don't exist), but while the copyright status of the works from the State of California is still unclear, this template should not be redirected to no license, which triggers User:Orphanbot and the removal of the images after 5 days.


 * Also, why is this stuck in Category:Articles lacking sources? Most of the images that I've looked at in this category clearly have the source listed--it's the copyright status that is being disputed.
 * The tag itself has had the fact template added; that's why. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

SFOBB images
There are many images pertaining to the proposed eastern span replacement of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in Wikipedia and Commons. Are these OK or do these violate any copyrights or policy? -- Paddu 13:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:5262004bidopening.jpg marked with PD-because,
 * 1) commons:Image:ProposedSFOBBEasternSpan.jpg marked with ,
 * Image:SFOBB Rendering.jpg marked with non-free promotional,
 * 1) commons:Image:SFOBBEastSpan.jpg marked with ,
 * 2) any more?
 * They seem kosher to me. There's no exemption in CA statute for images.  The relevant language, IMO, from the court ruling, includes "At issue here is how California’s public records law treats the County’s copyright claim. That is a question of first impression in this state." ... "At the outset, we reiterate the principle that restrictions on disclosure are narrowly construed."  ... "the referenced copyright protection [in § 6254.9] is limited to computer software." That the legislature's intent was unambiguous, that it intended to define exactly what it wished to protect: "The Legislature knows how to explicitly authorize public bodies to secure copyrights when it means to do so." ... "By the express terms of section 6254.9, the Legislature has demonstrated its intent to acknowledge copyright protection for software only."  So it seems they're clearly OK if the works are owned or created by the State.  They're OK even if they weren't owned or created by the state unless there's a separate legal contract regarding them. (http://www.caltrans.ca.gov/use.html#ownership is informative. )--Elvey (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

New legal situation
CA Appellate court says "writings of public officials and agencies" available under California’s public records law (CPRA), are generally not subject to copyright. California County Hoarding Map Data Ordered to Pay $500,000. the court's ruling. I see the judge refers to Microdecisions v Skinner several times. My reading is that the court is unanimously stating (on p. 35-36) that it interprets the CA constitution to grant the people access to the public record without restrictions, except where the legislature has made an exception. The constitutional wording is quite different, but it seems the court is saying that much like in FL, "writings of public officials and agencies" available under California’s public records law (CPRA), are generally not subject to copyright.

'''Microdecisions v Skinner is a case where the state claimed copyright, but the courts ruled their claim INVALID. So a state website claiming copyright is not dispositive.'''


 * It's not important compared to the above ruling, but http://ca.gov/use.html#ownership does support this template:
 * "In general, information presented on this web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law. However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use. In order to use any information on this web site not owned or created by the State, you must seek permission directly from the owning (or holding) sources."--Elvey (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
I'm setting up archiving. There are several pre-Microdecisions v Skinner threads that really ought to be archived.