Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/Florida uploads by User:83d40m


 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the discussion was: No consensus. 3 weeks since it was re-listed without additional comment and no one could possibly wade through all this to arrive at a decision. Suggest to find another venue for this if action is still desired by any party.. After Midnight 0001 03:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Note to closing administrator: I ask that you could make sure our discussion has come to a proper conclusion before closing this (as of Aug 31, it is not concluded yet). Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * {{lf|Sarasota Municipal Auditorium - 83d40m - post cards inclasid.}
 * - upload pending
 * {{lf|Sarasota Municipal Auditorium - 83d40m - post cards inclasid.}
 * - upload pending
 * {{lf|Sarasota Municipal Auditorium - 83d40m - post cards inclasid.}
 * - upload pending
 * - upload pending
 * - upload pending
 * - upload pending
 * - upload pending
 * - upload pending
 * - upload pending
 * - upload pending
 * - upload pending
 * - upload pending
 * - upload pending

Here is the second upload of the New College pd-flgov above - I used an extended name to be able to differentiate between the two uploads, New College 2005 campus master plan 83d40m day 1 - Stefanos Polyzoides et al.2ndupload.jpg. What is the delay with all of the historical photographs that have been corrected to pd-flgov? Looks as if nothing is happening and the clock remains ticking toward deletions. 83d40m (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Item above was moved up because it seems to be overlooked. 83d40m (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * These all appears to be derivative works from a municipality, which are copyrighted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Several stricken as unquestionable or nearly unquestionably OK. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Several more stricken - I am willing to assume good faith that the uploader did his homework and verified that the museums/historical societies were not claiming copyright belongs to anyone else for images in their authority. Three remain, see below. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: There are no museums or historical societies involved -- the images were obtained from governmental agencies alone as Florida public documents. 83d40m (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you either give me a link or just summarize this massive text dump? I don't have much desire to read the whole thing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I already have, there is a link and excerpts above the full text of the Florida Sunshine Law. 83d40m (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The information provided above is a lot, but from what I can tell it only means that information may be freely disseminated: that is, the state government cannot hold the information private (e.g., http://www.flgov.com/ states "email addresses are public records); that doesn't mean however, that the Florida or any of its subgovernmental entities give up the rights to intellectual property (e.g., the same site has a copyright policy stating No material from... 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.). If I've misread this, then we can create a template for similar uploads, something like PD-Florida. But I don't think I am incorrect; if you disagree, I'll ask if you can post at the village pump, where we can get a wider base of expert opinion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It is important for you to realize that none of the public documents I have uploaded were derived from the state of Florida website you are citing, so the quote you have reiterated is not germane to my uploads and I would prefer to limit our discussion to my uploads and the Florida law governing my sources, which clearly are discussed in the law. I shall pursue the website claim you discovered separately on my own time by bringing it up with a state attorney.

Regarding my uploads, however, you remain incorrect and I find again that you seem not to have read the important material I have provided. I have no objection to obscuring the lengthy law details provided for your convenience, but I repeat the following, unfortunately lengthy, data, which is essential in this discussion because it seems to be ignored in your response. I have tried to make it easier to read. If you insist, I can give you documentation that will serve as an example of my requests for public documents and the instant provision of those public documents to me for my use (without concern for my use as expressed in the law). I will not provide it in this forum, because of its breech of my privacy, but given an e-mail to which it could be forwarded, disclosure is possible.

¤  Relevant Wikipedia articles on freedom of information:

Freedom_of_information_in_the_United_States "Among the most extensive are Florida's Sunshine Laws".

Freedom_of_information_legislation_(Florida) "The open government laws in Florida are the most expansive among the United States."

¤  A newspaper article regarding public documents in Florida:

[Ask Doug: Florida’s public records law] Updated: Monday, 28 Jun 2010, 7:37 AM EDT Published : Monday, 28 Jun 2010, 7:37 AM EDT Doug Smith FOX 13 Investigative reporter

''The state of Florida puts a high priority on the public's right to information, a tradition that began in 1909. That's when lawmakers passed what's come to be known as the Public Records Law, Chapter 1.19 of the Florida Statutes. '''The law says that any records made or received by any public agency over the course of official business will be made available for inspection. It applies to all public records, except those specifically exempted by lawmakers'.

''Our investigative unit often relies on Florida’s public records law. Last month, we looked at state records to learn more about a pain management clinic in Tampa. Those records provided a picture of the business before drug enforcement agents raided it. The spirit of our public records law may have stayed the same over the past century, but our world has changed dramatically. '''Back in 1909, the idea of public records included mainly papers, maps and books. Today, it also covers photographs, films, audio and video recordings, computer records, and e-mail messages. Just last year, Florida’s Attorney General issued an opinion stating that the law now includes text messages like those you'd send on a Blackberry.'

[bold is mine and inspection includes obtaining copies. Most importantly it also covers copy and use -- see below under the use as cited by the law]

¤  The opinion of an attorney teaching Florida law to local government officials:

At a local government law seminar presented by the Manatee county attorney on April 23, 2010 in Bradenton, Florida the question of copyright assertions posted on some websites broadcast by governmental agencies in Florida arose and the attorney stated that any declaration of copyright -- was in error -- and that even if stated, was invalid because any publication on the Internet or publication on paper by any governmental agency or division in the state was copyright free and public record unless specifically exempted by the legislature (and the list of the exemptions is short and explicit, having to do with the disclosure of personal information such as social security numbers, personal injury photographs of victims, and certain confidential communications with the federal government). Further, he stated along with all state agencies, boards, institutions, and associated committees, that all committees, boards, and agencies of local government whether elected or appointed were covered by the Florida Sunshine laws and public document regulations.

(Local Government Law Seminar – the, of course, copyright-free publication of the program presented during this seminar and video of the day’s sessions are available to you from Manatee County Attorney’s Office, 1112 Manatee Avenue West, Bradenton, Florida 34205. Requesting a copy of this publication and video will provide you with the documentation you need to support this assertion and a copy of the video may be available through the county website (I have not checked). My copy of the publication and the video on DVD were provided without charge. The topic was raised toward the end of the [day long] seminar when the subject of advisory committees and agencies such as the metropolitan planning organizations -- specifically the mpo and its ccc -- in the state were discussed with members of the audience that was composed of the local government officials that included appointees, who were gathered for a credit course on the laws that affect them regarding Sunshine regulations.)

and further

¤  Excerpts from the Florida sunshine laws:

What records are covered? •	"Records" are defined in the law as "all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency." •	The Florida Supreme Court has interpreted records to include "any material prepared in connection with official agency business which is intended to perpetuate, communicate, or formalize knowledge of some type." [8]

How can records be used? Going back to 1905, before the law was formalized, Florida courts have held that it is not up to the government to determine the use to which a person might put public documents once copies are received.[21]

[This is the crucial statement in the state law that assures that public documents carry no copyright. Copyright governs rights to use and establishes private ownership. Florida laws (similar to federal laws) state that public documents are just that -- public documents -- they are owned by the public, whose tax dollars were spent to create the documents. This is the only documentation that you need to understand that your interpretation is incorrect.]

¤  If you go to the White House website you will see an appropriate statement about copyright and public documents. http://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright ''Copyright Policy Pursuant to federal law, government-produced materials appearing on this site are not copyright protected. The United States Government may receive and hold copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. Creative Commons License Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to Whitehouse.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.''

[It is a shame that similar statements fail to be posted on sites in Florida, but the statement by the Manatee County attorney suffices, that even if noted incorrectly, being absent or failing to be noted, all public documents in Florida are copyright free and that includes erroneous statements.]

You are stating that the state law itself, the relevant article in Wikipedia regarding it, an attorney discussing the state laws and the copyright free status of all public documents in Florida with those subject to the law in a seminar, and a newspaper reporting about its advantages because of the law -- are not enough for you to recognize the error of your assertion. I understand that you are not an attorney, but editors such as you ought to have some understanding of the laws you are going to act on here.

I and other authors publish images such as these all the time in Florida. There is no copyright for public documents. They are given out freely to the public. Most are given without a copy fee or are available for download freely (only extensive legal documents that require hours of copying ever carry a nominal fee for the cost of the copying alone since the employee wages are not allowed). When I request these items, they become mine to use as I please (read the law quoted above). That is copyright free. No question should remain here. I have provided the basis for my use.

If you need reassurance from some special subdivision of Wikipedia to reverse a process you started, I believe that it is your obligation to do so, not mine. I am perfectly clear on my rights. You are unsure of your basis to weld the authority you are exercising by suppressing my legal rights and unwilling even -- to read the law that governs my rights. You should not have the authority to suppress my legal use of documents without an understanding of my rights. You are not the first administrator here encountered, who fails to understand the legal aspects of their duties -- I ignored it previously -- but for a wholesale suppression of my uploads, I am making my claim that this ignorance cease.

Yes, a special code for Florida public documents should exist. Ignorance of Florida law when it is stated clearly in a Wikipedia article that is being ignored, is untenable and needs correction.

Broad suppression of the rights of others in states that also may extend these rights, but which administrators in Wikipedia fail to note, is a lessening of the enrichment of Wikipedia. I am uploading Florida public documents, however, and know her laws well regarding copyright and public documents. Other authors and I publish these items all the time. I will not yield in my resolve.

Without motivation ever being expressed, you obviously have clipped happily through my gallery of images and made a massive complaint on my user page against me regarding thirteen images, some of long standing that surely received scrutiny at the time of initial posting. Patiently, I have given you the necessary documentation that defines clearly the types of documents covered by the Florida law and that all agencies are obligated to provide them as public documents. I have shown you the relationship to my uploads. My patently legal uploads should be released from your complaint. If you remain unsure, you should do what you need to obtain advice, not make another guess, seemingly without even reading the documentation, and -- attempting to foist your responsibility onto me.

I have spent hours assembling the documentation and responding to you. I believe that I have fulfilled my obligation quite thoroughly.

What I have done is legal. I have provided you with the legal documentation of my rights. If you do not understand the extensive documentation (provided at your demand), nor the Wikipedia article on the subject, please pass your complaint along to someone who is able to provide you with the assurance that my documentation is correct. I am sure you have resources available to you for further advice and I hereby request you to seek it. I should not be dragged into having to do your job. You started the complaint and should see it through to your informed decision regarding the complaint. Your complaints against my legally uploaded files should be withdrawn by you as soon as you have resolved your uncertainty.

Administrators should be correcting this uncertainty of yours and educating you and other administrators who exercise authority without proper education. Even if it is merely for Florida public documents, this is a worthwhile use of your time if it promotes advancement in policies and resolves the constant loss suffered by the encyclopedia through the suppression of perfectly legal items that enrich the publication. 83d40m (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, a few things of note:
 * 1) If you have a question on something about our procedures, that's fine, but I'm going to as you to assume good faith and avoid attacking me personally for the deletion request. Wikipedia has a lot of procedures, and I know they're hard to understand or might seem unfair, but I don't believe it's right to attack me personally regardless. I'm trying to help the encyclopedia as much as you are.
 * 2) I requested above that if you had any further issues that you post it at the Village Pump for Policy issues. As you have not, I will post a note there, and we can get more input. We want to make sure we do this right, and we're not going to delete a file without a full discussion. That's why we have this discussion page here, and the files weren't just deleted on spot without input.
 * 3) I've collapsed your responses not because I don't want to read them, or because anyone is ignoring them, but because they're so long, that it's hard to navigate the page without the collapse. If you don't like that, you can undo it, although it might do well to have section headers. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I want you to understand my position clearly as well.

"1) If you have a question on something about our procedures, that's fine, but I'm going to as you to assume good faith and avoid attacking me personally for the deletion request. Wikipedia has a lot of procedures, and I know they're hard to understand or might seem unfair, but I don't believe it's right to attack me personally regardless. I'm trying to help the encyclopedia as much as you are."

I do assume good faith and am not attacking you. I have remained cordial and exercised patience. I have encountered this same issue previously and believe that the editors who are charged with doing this type of activity fail to understand the laws of Florida and have made no attempt to understand them because of a convenient policy that allows them to parrot that only public documents of the federal government may be used freely.

The rules that you rely upon are what I am opposing and I intend to make sure that they are resolved here and now so that I may proceed with contributions. You are not responsible for that oversight. I admit to being rather resentful that you decided to overwhelm me with thirteen files being challenged and dealt with within two weeks. Talk about feeling attacked! It was not one file you chose and questioned me about, you opened my gallery of images uploaded over the years and systematically chose every one that you believed you could tag. How would you interpret that if you were in my place?

One file could have served the exact same purpose to be examined in a manageable time frame, and from which the others could be extrapolated at the conclusion. That was lessened when you at least grouped them together, so I could deal with the fundamental issue alone. (Perhaps that may serve as a model for you in the future.)

If I do not oppose this vigorously, it will never be resolved, but all the while I believe that it should never have been necessitated. Do not misinterpret the strength of my response to the issue as personal. I presume you are well-intended. Understanding of the laws you are charged to enforce, should have been part of your training or guidelines so that I would never have been targeted for perfectly legal uploads. You need better tools.

"2) I requested above that if you had any further issues that you post it at the Village Pump for Policy issues. As you have not, I will post a note there, and we can get more input. We want to make sure we do this right, and we're not going to delete a file without a full discussion. That's why we have this discussion page here, and the files weren't just deleted on spot without input."

I do not have any further issues, this one is the only one I wish to have resolved. It seemed as if you had set this in motion and when unsure of how to proceed, were expecting me to take your complaint to someone else for resolution. When I know that I have a legal right to use the public documents, why would I be interested in taking the issue before someone else? The point I was making was that I believed you should pursue further discussion at a higher level and that a presumption that I should, did not follow any rational logic to me. I do not mind responding in this process because it needs resolution, but I have no intention of asserting that there is an issue beyond a problem that administrators are dismissing perfectly legal uses because of institutionally-reinforced ignorance at Wikipedia.

The last time I encountered this issue it was resolved by the deletion of my upload without any attempt to answer my assertion that the process was flawed and that my upload was legal because it was published by a governmental agency in Florida and disseminated as a public document without a restriction on its reuse. I do not intend to let that reoccur. I also, want to do this correctly -- thank you for taking the additional step I thought was yours to take.

I shall participate as thoroughly as necessary where it is appropriate. I have provided resources that will assist in the resolution including contact with a Florida county attorney who teaches this type of law to local government officials.

"3) I've collapsed your responses not because I don't want to read them, or because anyone is ignoring them, but because they're so long, that it's hard to navigate the page without the collapse. If you don't like that, you can undo it, although it might do well to have section headers."

Your responses above did not read that way to me. You stated that, "I don't have much desire to read the whole thing." I took your words at face value, that you seemed to have no intention of reading my defense after you had made the complaint. Your responses seemed to confirm that you had not read the defense you called for.

I am more than willing to respond with information to resolve this, but I expect my responses to be read by anyone involved in this process and I desire that we stick to the central issue -- "that I have public documents that I have obtained legally and freely from Florida governmental agencies, which&mdash;following Florida law&mdash;they gave to me for my legal use without any restriction and, that I have uploaded them, also without restriction, for the use of others and the enrichment of Wikipedia."

The extensive list of what are Florida public documents, is covered clearly in the law (as are the only exceptions).

You seem to understand that access to the public documents is free, but fail to read further about the copy and use allowed by Florida law. Again, I will quote a document you have suppressed. How can records be used? Going back to 1905, before the law was formalized, Florida courts have held that it is not up to the government to determine the use to which a person might put public documents once copies are received. Florida public document law is as extensive as that of the federal government. If one wants a Florida public document, it is requested, it must be given -- and the recipient may use it freely.

Yes, a tag for the legal use of public documents from Florida is needed to recognize this legal use in Wikipedia. I call that copyright-free and so does the county attorney teaching relevant law to local government officials, I do not care what you call it, so long as the uploads are recognized as perfectly legal by Florida law and accepted. pd-Florida as you suggested, will suffice.

I indicate sources in my file summaries and I often use source as part of the title of the image. Once a new device is instituted, indicating in the summary or copyright field pd-Florida ought to bring up a box with an appropriate statement such as, This is a public document from a governmental agency or institution in Florida, obtained from a state, regional, county, municipal, or any of the associated organizations, boards, and committees affiliated with them and, according to state law, it may be copied and used freely. That could be clarified further in the summary with the source cited.

Although it seems to distort and limit the discussion, I presently am willing to accept your collapsing my previous responses -- so long as that does not lead to the content being overlooked by you or anyone involved in this decision. This one should not be collapsed. 83d40m (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Florida laws at, I see much mention that (with some exceptions) any government agency in Florida must allow personal inspection and copying by any person. But I see nothing beyond this in my limited inspection, which could mean that (1) the person may not redistribute the public records and/or (2) the person may not create derivative works from the public records, either of which is sufficient to make the information insufficiently free for Wikipedia to use it without meeting WP:NFCC (consider, for example, why we don't allow CC-BY-ND licensed material). However, assuming the Wikipedia articles on Copyright status of work by the Florida government and Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner are accurate, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal has interpreted the law to mean just what 83d40m asserts: subject to certain exceptions, Florida public records are copyright-free. And the Florida Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court have declined the opportunity to review that decision. But that does still leave open the question of why the law itself that I linked above says "Copyright © 1995-2010 The Florida Legislature" at the bottom; asking them about this may be instructive. If you want an opinion that might have actual weight, go ask a lawyer. Anomie⚔ 04:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The huge infodump by 83d40m is basically useless (sorry, but it's true); maybe some of this is buried up there, but I can't find it buried in that unformatted mess. IANAL, but here is my layman's take on the matter:


 * Um, as 83d40m has already posted in this discussion more than once, a lawyer has already been asked:

 "At a local government law seminar presented by the Manatee county attorney on April 23, 2010 in Bradenton, Florida the question of copyright assertions posted on some websites broadcast by governmental agencies in Florida arose and the attorney stated that any declaration of copyright -- was in error -- and that even if stated, was invalid because any publication on the Internet or publication on paper by any governmental agency or division in the state was copyright free and public record unless specifically exempted by the legislature (and the list of the exemptions is short and explicit, having to do with the disclosure of personal information such as social security numbers, personal injury photographs of victims, and certain confidential communications with the federal government). Further, he stated along with all state agencies, boards, institutions, and associated committees, that all committees, boards, and agencies of local government whether elected or appointed were covered by the Florida Sunshine laws and public document regulations."

Zeng8r (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Following some of your links, I discovered the correct template Template:PD-FLGov.

This template already exists!

It states exactly what I have been saying. It is a shame that all of this energy needed to be expended to discover it, but it solves my issue with Florida public documents.

Now, where do I insert this in the summary of such files?

Another file, Category:Florida government images, was found at that states it is supposed to be used with items having the PD-FLgov template. How is this supposed to be used? If it begins to be used properly, it could become rather unwieldy.

I presume that there are other states with similar public document regulations. Can't Wikipedia make a list of the states and clarify this for editors and administrators? It would save a lot of time and angst as well enabling the use of many things that would enrich Wikipedia. 83d40m (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Discovered this link Category:US State PD templates at that should be used for what I was discussing just above. It only has been used for three states. Can that be made a project of some sort by Wikipedia to make it more complete? These tools need to be made more readily available. 83d40m (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Direction is needed here. 83d40m (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, as to the university works, Copyright status of work by the Florida government asserts that universities are exempt. Here is the official text: . I think we're going to have to delete the university works.
 * As for the others, can you let me know if the Sarasota County Historic Center owns the copyright to those photographs? As in, were they donated to the center in full? Or are they using the photographs on a provisional basis, so to speak (e.g., "I retain the copyright, but allow the center to display it for informational purposes only"). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep all: In doing my own searching and in reading over everything here it is fairly clear nothing has been done in bad faith in regards to these uploads. I don't feel there is any need to rehash everything that has been said but in regards to the last post (above) it appears that there is still somewhat of a misunderstanding. The page linked to is about "Public Postsecondary Education" and is only a portion of the Title XLVIII - K-20 EDUCATION CODE that discusss' what rights schools have in regards to "patents, copyrights, and trademarks" and in selling them, not about public records or even a state funded university. It is about contributions by university personnel in the development of trademarks, copyrights, and patents and being able to License, lease, assign, or otherwise give written consent to some person or business the right to manufacture the items (Whatever is in the "patent" or, say, a school emblem/logo on school merchandise for example) it is as well the schools right to the collection of any sums due from the sales as well as the right to execute all instruments necessary to consummate any such sale. That has nothing to do with these images. I 100% agree with the earlier comments made by 83d40m - for me not all editors (myself included) know "everything" about "everything", but I try to keep within what I know. I have raised the same concerns over the years, in terms that some sort of "special" admins oversee certain areas as a requirement based on what they do know. Because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and "anyone" can make nominations such as these and, in turn, anyone" can become an admin, there is not any way to avoid these kinds of issues so we are left with a Wikipedia that has many editors who are jacks of all trade, master of none. I do not want anyone to misread that comment as I am saying these nominations by Magog the Ogre were done in bad faith, I am not. This thread can best be paraphrased/summed up by saying Florida is a state that has very good public access laws and yes, the foundation (or at least Mike Godwin) should make a list of the states and their public access laws in order to clarify this for editors and administrators. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you read what I wrote about universities? They're exempt and as such have copyrighted photos. Obviously those shouldn't stay. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply: Did you read what I said about what you said? You said Here is the official text: and I detailed that in my response. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * NOTE: I have asked User:BD2412 to stop by and take a look at this and comment as they are an I.P attorney in Florida. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I am not able to comment on the issue at this time. bd2412  T 21:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please make sure you relate that these are Florida public documents derived from public meetings or provided during public business. I.P. attorneys are in practices related to private property. You might note that the opinion of the county attorney from Manatee teaching local government officials about relevant Florida law for governmental agencies is stated two or three times in this discussion. 83d40m (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to soundvisions1 regarding the decision to keep all and the agreement that the foundation needs to provide a better tool to editors to keep from repeating this issue time and again. Please note that I did not hold the complaining editor to task personally, asserting clearly that the lack of proper tools enabled editors with limited knowledge to make incorrect judgments in good faith and that was the case in my issue. The quantity of images in the complaint because of the burden it placed on me to respond to so many in such a short period of time, was my only perception of something that should have been handled differently.

I would be glad to help with any project that would create better guidelines for this type of issue.

Magog, as soundvisions1 pointed out the item you noted regarding the university images, does not relate to the public documents. These images were produced in a public meeting or series of meetings, or as result of a public meeting or in conducting public business. The campus planning process of New College is a public meeting and the documents resulting from that are in the public domain as are the documents arising from the planning of the USF campus. The map is in the public domain. The item you noted is most circumspect legally and deals with a very limited scope of activities, not with public documents. Interpretation of laws is based on the meanings of very precise language, nothing ought to be left to the reader to presume and squabbles over laws usually have to do with interpretations of language that is unclear, ambiguous, or subject to alternative interpretation.

Yesterday, I edited the files for each of the images that had not been deleted so they would not be deleted at the close of the day, as I expected by the date in the notices. Without guidance to follow, I guessed about the best action necessary and acted. I deleted the pnf tag and inserted a pd-flgov tag for each and I made comments in the summaries regarding the origins. I hope that this is correct. I apologize if I did not adhere to the proscribed (and unknown) procedure, but I just wanted to avoid all those images having to be uploaded again. Do you want me to change any of this?

I now will upload the charrette photograph again and use the correct tag for its license.

Two of the images among the thirteen were not public documents. As I clipped though the files changing tags, I reiterated in the summaries for both that the license is correct for them and expanded my discussion of why they are cited correctly. Thanks to all editors involved in this issue. I hope we can close this item. 83d40m (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've struck all but three. I'm still skeptical about the two South Florida floor plans - despite Soundvision's declaration, Florida universities appear to not be bound by the copyright free clause for Florida public institutions. And the last one is a collection of postcards, can we be absolutely sure the copyright has been transferred to the state? Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply: It was not what *I* declared, it is what the actual link you provided declares. As I said it is about contributions by university personnel in the development of trademarks, copyrights, and patents, not about public access laws. I did more research and, ironically, the USF general council put together a PPT about what the University system is required to do under Floridas' Sunshine Laws. Once slide even says that meetings must be open to the public and include workshops, telephone conversations, e-mail communications, seeing each other at the grocery store. It also points out that Sunshine Law broadly construed - exemptions narrowly construed It has already been pointed out above but is worth repeating here because this is direct form the legal council for the University of Florida system (Bold emphasis added) - Florida Statutes Chapter 119 defines public records as: All documents, papers, letter, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing software, or other material regardless of physical forms or means of transmission made or received pursuant to law in connection with transaction of official business by the agency. They do list one "exemption" : Not applicable to truly personal records. The next slide states that not only does the Public records law applies to USF records but it includes all types of records including letters, notes, and e-mails and it is to be broadly construed, exemption narrowly construed "What are the 'exact' exemptions?" is my guess at what comment will be posted next if the general "truly personal records" comment is all that is stated. But the general council for USF breaks it down - exemptions are/include Social Security numbers, Medical information, Personal information prior to 7/1/95, Academic evaluation of job performance, Disciplinary records while discipline is in process, Student records under FERPA. I don't see anything uploaded that comes close to fitting those exemptions. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty clear to me -- "unless exempted by statute or constitutional provisions" -- is the only basis for it not being public record and thereby in the public domain. Maps are one of the examples of what a public document is and they are not on the list of exemptions (all of which are in the long version of the legislation that I posted initially). The legal opinions of a county attorney and the general council for the university have been provided. Magog, please show explicitly, a stated exemption from the law (listed by statutes) that would exclude this from being a Florida public document. Otherwise the judgment has to be that it qualifies. 83d40m (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, pardon me if I'm dense on this, but I guess I'm not catching the gist of what you two are trying to say. Yes, they are a matter of work by a university official, but it doesn't matter because §1004.23 states: "Any other law to the contrary notwithstanding, each state university is authorized, in its own name, to [secure copyrights]." Universities own copyrights, because the legislature created an exception for them from the Sunshine Laws. Can you please address this directly in your response? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I already addressed it above - the best I can do is try a very overly simplistic response. In regards to people who work at/for a state university the board of a state university can allow them to, for example, make a school logo. They can, in turn, register that logo as a trademark under the university name. That university now owns that trademark and they can put it on a T-shirt and sell by whatever means they want to. They can sub-license that logo to a manufacturer who wants to make action figures, they can license that logo for use on TV or in the movies. As they own the logo, they can do whatever they want with it. The state has no say, thusly a schools logo would not be in Public Domain unless the school itself released it as such. The exact same would go for somebody in a lab who came up with a unique design - it can be patented and the school own that patent and can do whatever it wants with it. A patent could be considered a "trade secret" making it also exempt if a state university wanted it to be. A patent is not in Public Domain. A logo could be copyrighted - thusly a state university could legally retain a copyright on a registered trademark that was a logo. (In plan English from theU.S. Copyright Office copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark.)


 * However in regards chapter 19, which is *not* part of what you currently are asking about, everything that goes on that is of "public record" (with the exceptions, as an example, I listed above and again repeated below, that are direct from State University of South Florida's general council) is available to the public "for the asking". If you were to email a state university about this issue anyone could legally obtain that email. (As stated above by the State University of South Florida's general council Public records law applies to USF records and includes all types of records including letters, notes, and e-mails)


 * A good summary, to repeat what the State University of South Florida's general council said: Sunshine Law broadly construed - exemptions narrowly construed. The K-20 EDUCATION CODE, of which §1004.23 is a part of, is *not* about the public's access to information. Chapter 119 *is* about public access to records and the exemptions that are mentioned in that, in regards to the State University of South Florida system are defined as: Social Security numbers, Medical information, Personal information prior to 7/1/95, Academic evaluation of job performance, Disciplinary records while discipline is in process, Student records under FERPA If you want a longer legal version of exemptions feel free to wade through 119.07, 119.071 and 286.011 Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a good summary for you Magog. What it boils down to is that you have fixated on a law about intellectual property rights of the university solely for use of things that are put into the marketplace (logos and marketing slogans on t-shirts, coffee cup sales, the artwork for a team mascot and such) that would prevent the use by others to make profits and enable the university to control the use of these. Of course the state wants them to have that control so there is an exception to the freedom of information laws for these items that allows seeking a copyright even though state funds are used in their being developed. Its application is very limited. We are not dealing with such items (even though we could publish their logos under fair use in an article about the teams of the specific items).

In our issue, we are dealing with the laws about public documents that have to do with the business of being a university whose funding is derived from the state, how it functions, and information about it -- to which anyone must have free access and be able to obtain copies that they may use as they please. These laws are not related to the tiny exception you have found which is granted for obvious reasons.

It is a shame that many web designers automatically set a copyright assertion (in error) on sites that should be without or for which there should be clarification regarding the freedom of access for the public documents contained on them. These sites should resemble that of the White House -- which has an entire page of their site devoted to the copyright-free status of the information on the site. No one oversees false claims for copyright unfortunately and there is no recourse established to make them be removed. That does not make them legal and they may be ignored without any concern. Knowledge of the federal and state laws must be the guide.

Don't be concerned -- you have confused apples and oranges -- many people do. You have not been provided with proper tools to work on these issues. This is why I believe that Wikipedia needs to create clear direction for its editors and why I have persisted in this debate. I hope that it will provoke correction so other editors do not misunderstand the law, that we may be involved in educating our readers, and that our publication will be enriched with images and documents that are lawful uses of public documents. 83d40m (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK I think I finally understand the essence of what you're saying. The exception on university copyrights is narrowly confined to non-public university issues, and this example doesn't apply because it's public. Can you provide some sort of proof that this is the legal interpretation of the law? Also, as for fixing the issue for further reference, my recommendation is to apply sofixit to PD-FLGov (you'll notice I've already partially done so). Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I realized Soundvisions1 already gave that above, but I would love to see a specific example of the law being applied as such. It's not that I don't believe you or want to believe you, it's that we don't want to make mistakes with this, especially if we're going to be creating templates for the future. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that you do not understand it yet and you should not be involved in changing the template or creating new ones without full understanding. If, as you imply with we, you are dealing with other editors who are planning to make new templates, please refrain from this because creating new erroneous templates would be worse than not having them.

Regarding your request for a specific example, the law is the proof of the law and we have given that to you many times above. Case law further defines minor adjustments to it unless it is amended. We have given you those as well. You are inviting us to rehash all of that when you should have read the laws and case law we cited to you. Please read again the response of Soundvisions1 dated 05:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC) that gives you the link to the laws and the exemptions.

You only need to remember that, all Florida public documents are copyright-free. Editors will not be granted access to Florida state documents that are not free (because of privacy issues and the other main categories of exemption), so they are not likely to be encountered. That really simplifies matters for you. If it is given to a requester or copied from electronic sources made available to the public -- no matter what is asserted incorrectly about copyright by an ignorant webmaster as a routine disclaimer for a site) -- it is a public document.

Access to items not classified as public documents is denied if requested, and these things are not broadcast or published. A lawsuit is necessary to gain access if the requester believes that an item has been classified incorrectly.

A request would be denied for any item that would not qualify as a public document or that would carry a third party's existing copyright that had not been released (for example, a pamphlet that bears an exiting private copyright, although it might be included in a state governmental agency's presentation, would not be released as a public document because of the existing copyright, however, all else from the presentation must be) and they only could hand out copies of the pamphlet provided freely by the copyright holder for that purpose unless expressly granted reproduction rights by the copyright holder). An image published in a state document or used in a state presentation that bears a private copyright, would be cited clearly as such for that item by the agency.

If an item is a logo, slogan, or such -- that is used on items put up for sale by a school in the state system, it is not a public document and a specific exemption allows it to be copyright. It still may qualify for inclusion in an article on the school, via fair use regulations in Wikipedia.

If a widget is developed by a state research institution that will be sold on the open market, the school may obtain a patent for it that will dictate that the research leading up to it be kept private and marketing materials related to it may be copyright. These would not be classified as public documents, and therefore, would not be covered by the Florida freedom of information laws. Access to them would be denied as well.

If a logo for a school is used on a Florida public document, it does not keep the document from being copyright-free.

You do not need to make a template for Florida public documents because it already exists and is correct. I have reversed the change you recently made to it because what you did is incorrect and will perpetuate your misunderstanding of the law.

Template:PD-FLGov should not change. I have moved it to here for the discussion following it.

The template is intended to identify a Florida public document. Its purpose is not to define any of the exemptions (which properly are covered separately). The purpose of the template is simply to identify an item that does qualify as a Florida public document.

Freedom of information legislation (Florida) (Wikipedia's article about the laws) covers the issue of exemptions and directs the reader (or editor) to the sections of the law that will display the current status of the limited number of exemptions.

You have attempted to list exemptions on the template, which is inappropriate. The exemptions change with legislation and it is up to the up-loader to confirm an exception and whether it still exists (any erroneous exemption that happens to be passed in a legislative session will sunset at the end of that year automatically in compliance with the overriding Florida law that renews only correct exemptions). Although there are a small number of them, there are very limited uses of exemptions from the Florida public document laws and each must be used precisely.

The most important problem in your changes to the template is, that you added the confusion you obviously still have, which would have transferred your incorrect understanding to anyone who reads what you wrote. You stated in your change to the template that universities are exempt. We have devoted many hours clarifying to you that your notion is incorrect and that all public documents related to Florida schools are copyright-free.

Furthermore, you added your change to the template after the language of a certain law case when what you wrote had nothing to do with that law case.

Best for you not to attempt to make any changes to the articles related to Florida freedom of information laws nor to templates related to this. Leave that to editors who understand the laws. If you intend to challenge something bearing the Florida public domain template, PD-FLGov, (or if you intend to use it in a file), you are going to have to learn these lengthy laws and keep up with the annual cycle by which the state purges any invalid exemptions created by legislation that year and reasserts the valid exceptions to the laws. 83d40m (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

'''I have taken out the collapsing of the discussions after I said I did not want them collapsed further. It distorts the discussion'''. 83d40m (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Then I also decided to take out the collapsing of everything except where I transcribed the lengthy law and the exemptions for Magog because it shows clearly that the information necessary to close this debate has been supplied repeatedly and I call for it again. 83d40m (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.