Template talk:PD-MEGov
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
add image
[edit]how do I add an image to this? In particular, this one. MonkeyBBGB (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Template may need a bit of narrowing
[edit]Per conversation here, this doesn't apply to all Maine works, but only a subset. I'm having a bit of trouble figure out formatting, but we'd need to include something like Per Maine law, "The information developed by the network manager for InforME and public information made available through InforME is owned by the public, and copyright or licensing restrictions may not be fixed to this information by the board, the network manager or data custodians". Not all works of the Maine govenrment would be subject to this (indeed, print-only works by Maine's government from the 1990s would not be covered by this exception). It also doesn't appear to apply to local government websites that are created by the towns themselves, or other sorts of works by local officials.
It's very good that Maine is doing this for much of its online works. Now all that we need to do is to make sure the tag is specific enough to reflect the nuance of the situation. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- VPC has been notified. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure about this. The Harvard page on Maine mentions that above clause, which notes, While this language is encouraging, it does not prohibit the state entities which originate the information from asserting a copyright interest. The Maine.gov website notes that its photographs are generally copyrighted. Strictly speaking, "information" is not copyrightable. It's not really clear to me what (if any) copyrightable works are in fact OK by that clause. Can we identify one work which this tag would apply to? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: I agree that "information" in one sense (i.e. facts) is not copyrightable. However, "public information" as used in the law has a technical meaning: it's any information that is: Stored, gathered or generated in digitized form by a data custodian; and either a public record under section 402, subsection 3 or otherwise expressly authorized to be released as specified by law. And Section 402, subsection 3 defines a public record as means any written, printed or graphic matter or any mechanical or electronic data compilation from which information can be obtained, directly or after translation into a form susceptible of visual or aural comprehension, that is in the possession or custody of an agency or public official of this State or any of its political subdivisions, or is in the possession or custody of an association, the membership of which is composed exclusively of one or more of any of these entities, and has been received or prepared for use in connection with the transaction of public or governmental business or contains information relating to the transaction of public or governmental business, unless the record falls under one of several enumerated exceptions.
- So, we can figure out which works this explicitly does not apply to (i.e. anything enumerated), and I think one can identify works to which this would apply. The problem is that one such work (i.e. this webpage on the InforME website) has an "all rights reserved" label, so I'm not able to draw something super clear here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- OK. But then the statute says, "copyright or licensing restrictions may not be fixed to this information by the board, the network manager or data custodians." That, strictly speaking, does not say that copyright restrictions cannot be fixed by other government entities. They have a copyright policy for employees that makes clear that such works are works for hire owned by the state. So copyright would presumably exist at some point -- the question is what releases that right. The statute, directly, does not do that -- simply says that the end custodians cannot add licenses. It doesn't say they have the right to inject them into the public domain. The wording of "owned by the public" is definitely encouraging and points in that direction, but is at odds with claims from other parts of the government, and the statute falls short of saying that copyright does not exist at all. It's possible a court could decide things that way, but I'm not sure any of this has come up in court to give us any clarity. If the law intended to put that stuff into the public domain, it could have easily said so, but instead is somewhat equivocating, which makes me nervous to declare such stuff actually public domain with little risk. The only states we have allowed thus far are ones with "green" statuses on the Harvard site; Maine does not (primarily due to the above). The most common desire will be to use photographs; yet the Maine.gov photo policy pretty much says that most photos on the site aren't even state works, probably. Maybe that's a shortcut to not having to maintain credits/copyright on a photo-by-photo basis, but ... just don't know. This feels like a hopeful tag reading the statute, but without much real-life situations backing it up (there were court cases in Florida and California which helped there). It might be accurate if it came to a court case, but it also might not, and that may be a significant doubt. It just doesn't seem like a consistent actual policy in practice, and the wording seems to leave some loopholes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's fair. If that's significant doubt, then we'd have to delete this template and the images claimed under it. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- OK. But then the statute says, "copyright or licensing restrictions may not be fixed to this information by the board, the network manager or data custodians." That, strictly speaking, does not say that copyright restrictions cannot be fixed by other government entities. They have a copyright policy for employees that makes clear that such works are works for hire owned by the state. So copyright would presumably exist at some point -- the question is what releases that right. The statute, directly, does not do that -- simply says that the end custodians cannot add licenses. It doesn't say they have the right to inject them into the public domain. The wording of "owned by the public" is definitely encouraging and points in that direction, but is at odds with claims from other parts of the government, and the statute falls short of saying that copyright does not exist at all. It's possible a court could decide things that way, but I'm not sure any of this has come up in court to give us any clarity. If the law intended to put that stuff into the public domain, it could have easily said so, but instead is somewhat equivocating, which makes me nervous to declare such stuff actually public domain with little risk. The only states we have allowed thus far are ones with "green" statuses on the Harvard site; Maine does not (primarily due to the above). The most common desire will be to use photographs; yet the Maine.gov photo policy pretty much says that most photos on the site aren't even state works, probably. Maybe that's a shortcut to not having to maintain credits/copyright on a photo-by-photo basis, but ... just don't know. This feels like a hopeful tag reading the statute, but without much real-life situations backing it up (there were court cases in Florida and California which helped there). It might be accurate if it came to a court case, but it also might not, and that may be a significant doubt. It just doesn't seem like a consistent actual policy in practice, and the wording seems to leave some loopholes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)