User talk:Pharos/NARA

Context
I received this by snail mail some days after I sent an e-mail inquiry to NARA on the issue. This response was preceded by some e-mail messages I had with another worker at NARA, who could not give me a definitive answer to my inquiry. This letter was postmarked a couple of days after my last e-mail message.--Pharos 03:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is obviously incorrect. Works created by the US government are excluded from copyright protection by a specific statute which states:  "A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties."  It does not include works "accumulated" by the US government.  The NARA employee who sent that letter is overreaching. --  But | seriously | folks   02:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the historical context. The US government actually seized these intellectual properties after World War II as a sort of "war prize" and they were held under the Alien Property Custodian for many years.  Theoretically, yes, the government can own some copyrights to materials it did not create initially; however, in this case (and in most similar cases actually) they have given up such rights and placed the properties wholly in the public domain, as confirmed by this letter.  The author of this letter is not just some "employee"; he is the chief of the division of NARA which administers the seized German records, and as such is probably the representative of the US government most qualified to speak to this issue.--Pharos 01:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If he said that, I might agree, but he doesn't say that. He states in blanket terms that these images are PD because they were "created or accumulated" by US government officials.  That's clearly wrong.  --  But | seriously | folks   02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the US gave up all World War II-era seized intellectual properties years ago; they've all either been placed in the public domain or (in the case of those that would otherwise have been owned by private persons) been given back to their erstwhile owners. The few copyrights that the US government does own are of a different nature, mostly stuff like the NASA logo.  NARA does not administer any of the very few copyrights owned by the US government, so I think his statement is reasonable considering its context.--Pharos 03:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that first part? That's important.  I guess that would have to have been done by statute?  --  But | seriously | folks   06:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See here.--Pharos 06:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there something specific there? The Uruguay Round Agreements restored copyright to certain works that had fallen into the PD, but I was not aware that it released any works from copyright.  The reference does say, at page 19289, that "[t]he current copyright status of works once held by the Alien Property Custodian will depend on a number of variables."  So some of the works must be under copyright. --  But | seriously | folks   01:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the point is that the US government doesn't own any of them anymore — which is what I wanted to absolutely confirm when I wrote to NARA. The Alien Property Custodian office is totally dissolved and it has no successor agency at all.  It is true that it is difficult to evaluate in individual instances whether certain photographs would devolve to a private owner or not — but the Hoffmann photographs etc. are part of a collection that has been specifically evaluated by NARA and found to be PD, i.e. that they would not devolve to a private owner.--Pharos 23:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)