Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Law

 UPDATE  Submitted a bill for the 2009 legislature. Did not get a hearing, but may be a useful template for future sessions. See here: http://pdx.wiki.org/Oregon_transparency_bill

Also, join our mailing list: Oregon Transparency Taskforce

Older content
For many years now, the State of Oregon has claimed and exercised copyright protection for many resources produced by public dollars in Oregon. These resources include the organization and supplementary materials for the Oregon law, photos of historical figures, and charts and documents examining public policy. These copyright claims currently inhibit the reproduction and use of these documents by projects like Wikipedia.

This page is for the use of anybody interested in challenging this policy, and opening up public resources to the public.

The goal
Works of the United States government and its departments are automatically in the public domain. Florida, and perhaps a handful of other states, have similar laws; but Oregon claims copyright on materials it produces (such as the Oregon Blue Book.)

It's possible that those claims of copyright are simply state offices being overly cautious, and don't carry any legal weight. This note from an attorney, on a related subject, gives me hope that there exists some federal or constitutional mandate that makes it impossible for government agencies to copyright materials they produce.

Let's get some clarity on Oregon law, and if necessary, change the law to put Oregon government-produced works into the public domain, or get them licensed under a Creative Commons-style license.

Participants
Folks who have helped, or indicated willingness to help. Please add your name! Also, I think an email list might become the most manageable way of staying in touch; please indicate whether that would be OK with you, and send me an email so that I can start building a list. -Pete 19:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Peteforsyth
 * User:Katr67
 * User:Aboutmovies
 * User:EncMstr
 * User:Akendall
 * Ward Cunningham
 * Phil Keisling
 * User:Duff
 * Steven Walling
 * User:Awotter
 * Brad Avakian
 * Athelwulf
 * User:Capeboy
 * User:Bart Massey
 * User:kotra
 * User:Elvey

Resources

 * This resource from the Digital Library Content center at the University of Florida suggests that US gov't public domain status may apply only to its own citizens. This org. might be a valuable resource in surveying the lay of the land.
 * A paper calling for public agencies to clarify when content on their web sites is subject to private copyright claims.
 * A related New Jersey law from 2002
 * Some local info on the state-by-state status of such law

Strategy
(Input wanted here especially! Needs to be updated to reflect the possibility that no legislative change is needed.)
 * 1) Assemble a small team of volunteers to work on this project. Several people at BarCamp volunteered, and a couple of other Wikipedians have expressed interest. List names here? Assemble contact info/establish email list? Create WikiProject?
 * 2) Identify works that would be affected: photos by Oregon State Archives, maps of legislative districts, photos and text of Oregon Blue Book, what else?
 * 3) Identify and contact agencies that produce such works, and get a sense of their awareness/interest in this issue. (Pete has a brief email exchange in which the state claimed copyright on maps from the Oregon Blue Book.)
 * 4) Identify and seek resolution for any potential obstacles. For instance, are there any agencies that rely on a revenue stream by selling photos/maps?
 * 5) Plan a project that would have readily apparent value, but would not be possible if the law is not changed.
 * 6) Spread the word a bit via blogs/letters to the editor/op-eds? Do this before or after proposed legislation? Maybe both?
 * 7) Develop a "pitch" for the Governor and his legal counsel, key legislators to introduce and the legislative counsel. Above all, make it clear that we have anticipated many potential problems, and our proposal addresses them, and sketch out how they can "sell" the idea to their constituents. (I had an extensive email exchange with the Governor's communications office, and they seemed cooperative but unfamiliar with the issue. Said I'd have to speak with legal counsel for definitive answers, but they are very busy during session.)
 * 8) Get a firm commitment from several legislators to propose the legislation in the 2009 legislative session.

Draft of letter to legislator
(This is the first thing I did, maybe putting the cart before the horse a bit -Pete 18:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

Representative (or Senator) __:

I am writing to encourage you to introduce or support legislation that would place works of the government of Oregon (and perhaps of local governments in Oregon) in the public domain.

Works of the Federal government are already in the public domain, and Oregon should adopt a similar policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_of_the_United_States_Government

In an age when the repackaging of information for varied uses is becoming commonplace - frequently on weblogs, Wikipedia, and other Internet media - the necessity for ordinary citizens to remain attentive to copyright increasingly inhibits their ability to work for the common good.

If I may illustrate the importance of such a change with two examples. The first shows a case where the present law does not pose an impediment, but demonstrates the value of public use of state data. The second shows how copyright protections act as an impediment to voluntary work for the public good.


 * (1) The State-produced Oregon Blue Book maintains a web page that details all ballot measures, and their results, since 2000. This page is a valuable resource, but lacks modern conveniences such as links to the text of the ballot measures, the ability to sort on number of votes cast in favor, etc. https://sos.oregon.gov/blue-book/Documents/elections/initiative.pdf


 * A reconstruction of that page on Wikipedia, combined with other government-supplied data and linked to other Wikipedia entries, provides a resource that allows anyone with Internet access to study the history of ballot measures with great ease: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Oregon_ballot_measures#2000s


 * (2) The Blue Book also maintains maps of state Senate districts, but retains copyright over those images. https://sos.oregon.gov/blue-book/Pages/state/legislative/district-maps.aspx


 * The images maintained by the Blue Book, when taken as a whole, do provide complete information about district boundaries. They do not, however, allow a reader to easily get an overview of where every district in the state lies. They do not take advantage of coloring, or complement each other very well.


 * I have created three images which I believe do a better job of that. By extensively modifying the state-provided images, I believe I have avoided copyright violation, but to be honest, I am not certain that is true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_State_Senate#Senators_of_the_2005_Legislative_Session

Remaining attentive to such copyright issues is time-consuming and difficult for those not trained in copyright law. At times, a Wikipedia article or other public resource would be best-served by copying a government-generated resource wholesale; but as I understand it, that is not currently allowed.

To encourage the use of the commons presented by resources like Wikipedia, please consider making a law that will place state-generated resources in the public domain.

Sincerely, ___

A second draft
Representative or Senator ___:

I am writing to encourage you to introduce or support legislation that would place works of Oregon's government, and of local governments in Oregon, in the public domain. Works of the federal government are already in the public domain (see footnote 1), and Oregon should adopt a similar policy. In an age when the repackaging of information for various uses is commonplace - frequently on Internet media such as the online encyclopedia Wikipedia - the need for ordinary citizens to heed copyright laws inhibits their ability to work for the common good. Oregon's claim of copyright on its works inhibits dissemination of said works, and the copyright benefits no one. I consider it important that the state of Oregon allow individuals take its works and work together to make Oregon-specific information available to and more accessible by the general public.

To name an example of how projects like Wikipedia are inhibited by copyright, the Oregon Blue Book has maps of state legislative districts (such as the Senate district map in footnote 2), and the Oregon State Elections Division has more detailed maps of the same (see footnote 3), but the state of Oregon claims copyright over these and many other works. The state government provides complete information about district boundaries, but this information can be made more accessible and available in various forms.

Many articles on Wikipedia have benefited greatly from works of the United States government being in the public domain. For example, a map of glaciers on Mount Hood (see footnote 4) and a bathymetric map of the bottom of Crater Lake (see footnote 5), both created by the United States Geological Survey, add valuable information to the articles on Mount Hood and Crater Lake, respectively. That information would not be so readily available if the USGS's works were not in the public domain.

Here is another benefit: Because state law has allowed it, Wikipedia editors have created an easy-to-use resource for studying past Oregon ballot measures (see footnote 6) by using data from the Blue Book (see footnote 7), which records all measures and their results ever since the initiative process was established in Oregon in 1902. The Blue Book's database is a valuable resource, but it lacks conveniences such as links to the text of the measures and the ability to sort them by number of votes cast in favor. Wikipedia can provide these conveniences. Its reconstruction of this ballot measure history allows anyone with Internet access to study this history with great ease. Furthermore, Wikipedia's information on Oregon's ballot measures can be instantly expanded and improved by anyone, as can almost everything else on Wikipedia. This feature, among many others, makes Wikipedia one of the greatest projects on the Internet. This project is inhibited by copyright on government works, which is why I ask you to support the release of the state government's works into the public domain.

For some Wikipedia editors who do not know the copyright laws well, it is difficult to keep the laws in mind when editing articles. Often, Wikipedia articles and other public resources would greatly benefit from copying or modifying government works, but this cannot be done with the works of the state of Oregon. To promote the common good, please introduce or support legislation that would place state works in the public domain.

Sincerely, ___

FOOTNOTES


 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government
 * 2) https://sos.oregon.gov/blue-book/Pages/state/legislative/district-maps.aspx
 * 3) https://sos.oregon.gov/blue-book/Pages/state/legislative/district-maps.aspx
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Usgs_mount_hood_glaciers.png
 * 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mazama_bathymetry_survey_map.jpg
 * 6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Oregon_ballot_measures
 * 7) https://sos.oregon.gov/blue-book/Pages/state/elections/history.aspx

Back from the dead
OK, this issue is not dead yet, just taking a little nap. Sorry for slacking. I found a very helpful post from a Wikipedian attorney today. She claims that works produced by public agencies, federal or local, are not copyrightable, and are owned by the people, not the government agency. She cites some case law. Looks worthy of some further investigation! -Pete (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome project. I think I'll try to get involved. I'll start by writing to my state senator and representative. Perhaps I'll also include it in a letter to Steve Novick, since I'm composing a letter for him right now. I'll be sure to ask the government people I write to to cite specific laws that justify the Oregon government's claim to copyright. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 03:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Another Draft
Testimony in support of releasing works of Oregon's government and of local governments in Oregon to the public domain

Presented to Legislative Council Committee (submitted to Corinne Gavette via email, 6.18.08)

06.19.08

I write to encourage the Legislative Council Committee to support placing works of Oregon's government, and of local governments in Oregon, in the public domain.

I have had the opportunity to be a part of the development team for Connec+ipedia (http://connectipedia.org), a free, open source tool publicly launched June 10, 2008. This tool was designed with those working for the common good in mind—foundations, nonprofits, state agencies, etc. Pubic, private, and corporate foundations from across the state have been using this tool for 6 months already, and after the public launch on June 10th, members of the nonprofit community have shown a great deal of interest through registration numbers and website activity. Steve Woodward's enthusiastic review of Connec+ipedia in The Oregonian includes:

"Oregon is home to nearly 14,000 nonprofit organizations that exist for the public benefit. But until now, their 141,000 workers and estimated 1.8 million Oregon volunteers had no easy way to share their knowledge.  The long-awaited Connec+ipedia promises to solve that problem." http://www.oregonlive.com/living/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/living/1213660510304780.xml&coll=7

It is a place where people can find, share, contribute, vet, and annotate information about people, places and things to help us do our work better. As a free tool provided to the community, and built in a way that allows the public to easily contribute, it is the first opportunity of its kind: providing a place for people working across geographic boundaries to connect and find best practices, data, research, resources, and contacts, as well as connect foundations with the areas they fund and the nonprofits working in those areas. Representatives from state departments have already registered.

Works of Oregon's government, including Oregon Revised Statues, explanatory notes, tables, annotations, and so forth being in the public domain will greatly benefit all organizations and participants accessing (reading or editing, etc.) Connec+ipedia; this includes state agencies and nonprofits working on behalf of the state. Successful collaboration and usefulness of the tool depend on the ability of users to share, cite, copy and access (link to) state works (in parts or whole). As with Wikipedia, the community expectation and enforcement is to maintain accurate information in its proper light, neutralizing the concern for misuse.

Placing these works in the public domain would allow for more accurate information sharing via Connec+ipedia and other Internet-based collaboration tools, because abbreviations and summaries could be replaced with appropriate documentation from Oregon Revised Statues or Oregon Blue Book, for example. All those using Connec+ipedia, or other services, (whether as readers or registered users/editors) including staff in state agencies and nonprofits, would have access to information and be free to collaborate effectively about all aspects of programmatic work as it affects or is affected by governmental works like ORS, etc.

For these reasons, and as someone working for the common good, I ask that works by the Oregon government and local governments within the state by released to the public domain.

Respectfully submitted,

Amy Sample Ward

Previously:

Information & Technology Coordinator, Chalkboard Project

Currently:

Communications & Learning Associate, Meyer Memorial Trust

Local Organizer, NetSquared

Local Organizer, Nonprofit Technology Network (NTEN)

- Please leave comments, edits, etc. Will continue modifying myself and submit on 6.18.08 to committee
 * Amy, this is great! I made a couple edits and inline comments. Also, can you list your Chalkboard connection in your sig., perhaps? My impression is that CB is well-loved by the leg... -Pete (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pete! Made some edits and elaborated a bit. Let me know if you have more and I'll submit this morning! -Amy Sample Ward

Draft/outline for post-hearing blog post
NOTE all editing of this has moved over to a draft on the blog, let me or Amy or Bart know if you have suggestions, rather than editing this older version. -Pete (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Who was there: Rosenbaum, Richardson, Hunt, Courtney, Burdick, Nelson, Brown (on phone).
 * Invited testimony: Dexter Johnson presented; invited testimony from Carl Malamud (Public.Resource.Org), Karl Olson (attorney for P.R.O.), Tim Stewart (Justia.com.) Oregon State Bar wrote a letter which was not read at the hearing. (Anybody have a copy?)
 * Bart Massey (brief bio), Pete Forsyth (brief bio), Amy Sample Ward (brief bio).


 * Note the deliberative approach, the transparent decision-making of the LCC.


 * All members of the committee were engaged on the issue. Their concerns:
 * Guarding against publication of inaccurate versions of the law.
 * Protecting revenue streams, since LCC is charged with funding its own $2 million budget for preparing and publishing ORS. (Is that 2 million annual? per session?)
 * Impact on economic development.
 * Impact on public discourse about the law.
 * How do other states handle it.


 * Summarize the legal points and case law history, from PRO/Justia testimony.
 * "Teenager in a basement" point by Malamud, Burdick's question on it, "We can't predict where innovation comes from."
 * Summarize economic development issue from Bart's testimony
 * Note Connec+ipedia


 * What's next? Note Pete's point and Hunt's acknowledgement, a la State Seal.
 * Note broader legal issue about works of the state gov't: photos, charts, etc.


 * Upload written testimony of Bart, Amy, Pete -- perhaps other written testimony, too. Anybody have the OS Bar's letter?
 * Upload audio of hearing (Pete is almost done preparing that.)

Side points

 * Dexter Johnson noted in his introductory remarks that Justia had published ORS under its own copyright. Let's use this as a starting-point to explain the differences between public domain and "copyleft". This frame can illustrate how "nuts" certain stuff looks from each side, depending on your premise about ownership.
 * Burdick and others focused on Creative Commons-like licenses, could be good to explain what Dexter said about them/what they mean in this context and why not necessarily the course of action appropriate - mostly to address any questions that could arise if people listen to audio and hear it mentioned by name multiple times
 * Thorough overview (written before the hearing) by James Grimmelmann.