Is the U.S. Code copyrighted by the Government? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowCopying HTML: copyright violation?Can I hire a lawyer with contingent pay in the US while from abroad?Accident with borrowed car — whose insurance will apply to satisfy legal requirements?Are variations of the I(heart)NY logo public domain?How to legally distribute the data of all Internet websites?Can the US Government assert copyright on a government work internationally?Is the government liable for data destroyed during a forensic examination?How much of a copyrighted book can I display in a web app?Is the White House Weekly Address copyrighted?How does copyrighted material distribution and diffusion work on a legal level?
Strange use of "whether ... than ..." in official text
IC has pull-down resistors on SMBus lines?
Expressing the idea of having a very busy time
Purpose of level-shifter with same in and out voltages
What was Carter Burkes job for "the company" in "Aliens"?
(How) Could a medieval fantasy world survive a magic-induced "nuclear winter"?
Traveling with my 5 year old daughter (as the father) without the mother from Germany to Mexico
Can Sneak Attack be used when hitting with an improvised weapon?
Is a distribution that is normal, but highly skewed, considered Gaussian?
Why is information "lost" when it got into a black hole?
Can this note be analyzed as a non-chord tone?
Audio Conversion With ADS1243
What was the first Unix version to run on a microcomputer?
Inexact numbers as keys in Association?
Would a grinding machine be a simple and workable propulsion system for an interplanetary spacecraft?
Is there such a thing as a proper verb, like a proper noun?
Defamation due to breach of confidentiality
Calculate the Mean mean of two numbers
Aggressive Under-Indexing and no data for missing index
Is dried pee considered dirt?
Traduction de « Life is a roller coaster »
AB diagonalizable then BA also diagonalizable
Why don't programming languages automatically manage the synchronous/asynchronous problem?
What would be the main consequences for a country leaving the WTO?
Is the U.S. Code copyrighted by the Government?
The Next CEO of Stack OverflowCopying HTML: copyright violation?Can I hire a lawyer with contingent pay in the US while from abroad?Accident with borrowed car — whose insurance will apply to satisfy legal requirements?Are variations of the I(heart)NY logo public domain?How to legally distribute the data of all Internet websites?Can the US Government assert copyright on a government work internationally?Is the government liable for data destroyed during a forensic examination?How much of a copyrighted book can I display in a web app?Is the White House Weekly Address copyrighted?How does copyrighted material distribution and diffusion work on a legal level?
The age of the internet has brought all of human knowledge to our figure tips, this is only possible because of companies finding profitable reasons for storing all of this information for distribution.
Could someone make an app containing the entire U.S. Code(word for word) and distribute the app for a profit? Is the United State Code copyrighted?
united-states copyright public-domain us-federal-government federal-law
asked Mar 23 at 14:35
StephanSStephanS
37915
|
show 3 more comments
The age of the internet has brought all of human knowledge to our figure tips, this is only possible because of companies finding profitable reasons for storing all of this information for distribution.
Could someone make an app containing the entire U.S. Code(word for word) and distribute the app for a profit? Is the United State Code copyrighted?
united-states copyright public-domain us-federal-government federal-law
asked Mar 23 at 14:35
StephanSStephanS
37915
4
Anything published by the United States government does not have a copyright, so you don't need to apply "fair use" in publishing it.
– Ron Beyer
Mar 23 at 14:55
1
It would definitely not be "fair use", but as Ron Beyer said, there is no copyright, so no need to claim "fair use". Hypothetically, the USA could have laws that explicitly make it illegal to publish US laws for money, independent of copyright.
– gnasher729
Mar 23 at 15:22
2
@gnasher729 Such a law might be found invalid on Due Process grounds, as the wide publication of laws is essential to inform people what the law is, so thay can follow it. In addition it would probably be invalid on Free Press grounds, under the First Amendment, directly or as incorporated against the states under the 14th. The Pentagon Papers case would be relevant here. But the government has never tried to pass such a law, and it would be politically highly unlikely to try. So there is no case law exactly on point.
– David Siegel
Mar 23 at 17:04
2
@DM thanks for the link. But the suggestion of gnasher729 that a law might prohibit publishing the US Code for profit is not the same as a copyright claim. I think such a law would be invalid, however, on various grounds.
– David Siegel
Mar 23 at 19:36
2
@SoronelHaetir You would have been mistaken, I am afraid. Such works are routinely published and carry copyright notices. Remember that the work-for-hire rule applies to a non-employee only if the work fits one of the statutory categories, and a written contract explicitly makes it a work-for-hire. In fact, the government often uses a contractor rather than an employee precisely to secure copyright on the work, with the contract assigning the copyright to the government, but not making it a work-for-hire.
– David Siegel
Mar 24 at 1:01
|
show 3 more comments
The age of the internet has brought all of human knowledge to our figure tips, this is only possible because of companies finding profitable reasons for storing all of this information for distribution.
Could someone make an app containing the entire U.S. Code(word for word) and distribute the app for a profit? Is the United State Code copyrighted?
united-states copyright public-domain us-federal-government federal-law
asked Mar 23 at 14:35
StephanSStephanS
37915
The age of the internet has brought all of human knowledge to our figure tips, this is only possible because of companies finding profitable reasons for storing all of this information for distribution.
Could someone make an app containing the entire U.S. Code(word for word) and distribute the app for a profit? Is the United State Code copyrighted?
united-states copyright public-domain us-federal-government federal-law
united-states copyright public-domain us-federal-government federal-law
asked Mar 23 at 14:35
StephanSStephanS
37915
asked Mar 23 at 14:35
StephanSStephanS
37915
edited 2 days ago
StephanS
asked Mar 23 at 14:35
StephanSStephanS
37915
asked Mar 23 at 14:35
StephanSStephanS
37915
asked Mar 23 at 14:35
StephanSStephanS
37915
37915
4
Anything published by the United States government does not have a copyright, so you don't need to apply "fair use" in publishing it.
– Ron Beyer
Mar 23 at 14:55
1
It would definitely not be "fair use", but as Ron Beyer said, there is no copyright, so no need to claim "fair use". Hypothetically, the USA could have laws that explicitly make it illegal to publish US laws for money, independent of copyright.
– gnasher729
Mar 23 at 15:22
2
@gnasher729 Such a law might be found invalid on Due Process grounds, as the wide publication of laws is essential to inform people what the law is, so thay can follow it. In addition it would probably be invalid on Free Press grounds, under the First Amendment, directly or as incorporated against the states under the 14th. The Pentagon Papers case would be relevant here. But the government has never tried to pass such a law, and it would be politically highly unlikely to try. So there is no case law exactly on point.
– David Siegel
Mar 23 at 17:04
2
@DM thanks for the link. But the suggestion of gnasher729 that a law might prohibit publishing the US Code for profit is not the same as a copyright claim. I think such a law would be invalid, however, on various grounds.
– David Siegel
Mar 23 at 19:36
2
@SoronelHaetir You would have been mistaken, I am afraid. Such works are routinely published and carry copyright notices. Remember that the work-for-hire rule applies to a non-employee only if the work fits one of the statutory categories, and a written contract explicitly makes it a work-for-hire. In fact, the government often uses a contractor rather than an employee precisely to secure copyright on the work, with the contract assigning the copyright to the government, but not making it a work-for-hire.
– David Siegel
Mar 24 at 1:01
|
show 3 more comments
4
Anything published by the United States government does not have a copyright, so you don't need to apply "fair use" in publishing it.
– Ron Beyer
Mar 23 at 14:55
1
It would definitely not be "fair use", but as Ron Beyer said, there is no copyright, so no need to claim "fair use". Hypothetically, the USA could have laws that explicitly make it illegal to publish US laws for money, independent of copyright.
– gnasher729
Mar 23 at 15:22
2
@gnasher729 Such a law might be found invalid on Due Process grounds, as the wide publication of laws is essential to inform people what the law is, so thay can follow it. In addition it would probably be invalid on Free Press grounds, under the First Amendment, directly or as incorporated against the states under the 14th. The Pentagon Papers case would be relevant here. But the government has never tried to pass such a law, and it would be politically highly unlikely to try. So there is no case law exactly on point.
– David Siegel
Mar 23 at 17:04
2
@DM thanks for the link. But the suggestion of gnasher729 that a law might prohibit publishing the US Code for profit is not the same as a copyright claim. I think such a law would be invalid, however, on various grounds.
– David Siegel
Mar 23 at 19:36
2
@SoronelHaetir You would have been mistaken, I am afraid. Such works are routinely published and carry copyright notices. Remember that the work-for-hire rule applies to a non-employee only if the work fits one of the statutory categories, and a written contract explicitly makes it a work-for-hire. In fact, the government often uses a contractor rather than an employee precisely to secure copyright on the work, with the contract assigning the copyright to the government, but not making it a work-for-hire.
– David Siegel
Mar 24 at 1:01
4
4
Anything published by the United States government does not have a copyright, so you don't need to apply "fair use" in publishing it.
– Ron Beyer
Mar 23 at 14:55
Anything published by the United States government does not have a copyright, so you don't need to apply "fair use" in publishing it.
– Ron Beyer
Mar 23 at 14:55
1
1
It would definitely not be "fair use", but as Ron Beyer said, there is no copyright, so no need to claim "fair use". Hypothetically, the USA could have laws that explicitly make it illegal to publish US laws for money, independent of copyright.
– gnasher729
Mar 23 at 15:22
It would definitely not be "fair use", but as Ron Beyer said, there is no copyright, so no need to claim "fair use". Hypothetically, the USA could have laws that explicitly make it illegal to publish US laws for money, independent of copyright.
– gnasher729
Mar 23 at 15:22
2
2
@gnasher729 Such a law might be found invalid on Due Process grounds, as the wide publication of laws is essential to inform people what the law is, so thay can follow it. In addition it would probably be invalid on Free Press grounds, under the First Amendment, directly or as incorporated against the states under the 14th. The Pentagon Papers case would be relevant here. But the government has never tried to pass such a law, and it would be politically highly unlikely to try. So there is no case law exactly on point.
– David Siegel
Mar 23 at 17:04
@gnasher729 Such a law might be found invalid on Due Process grounds, as the wide publication of laws is essential to inform people what the law is, so thay can follow it. In addition it would probably be invalid on Free Press grounds, under the First Amendment, directly or as incorporated against the states under the 14th. The Pentagon Papers case would be relevant here. But the government has never tried to pass such a law, and it would be politically highly unlikely to try. So there is no case law exactly on point.
– David Siegel
Mar 23 at 17:04
2
2
@DM thanks for the link. But the suggestion of gnasher729 that a law might prohibit publishing the US Code for profit is not the same as a copyright claim. I think such a law would be invalid, however, on various grounds.
– David Siegel
Mar 23 at 19:36
@DM thanks for the link. But the suggestion of gnasher729 that a law might prohibit publishing the US Code for profit is not the same as a copyright claim. I think such a law would be invalid, however, on various grounds.
– David Siegel
Mar 23 at 19:36
2
2
@SoronelHaetir You would have been mistaken, I am afraid. Such works are routinely published and carry copyright notices. Remember that the work-for-hire rule applies to a non-employee only if the work fits one of the statutory categories, and a written contract explicitly makes it a work-for-hire. In fact, the government often uses a contractor rather than an employee precisely to secure copyright on the work, with the contract assigning the copyright to the government, but not making it a work-for-hire.
– David Siegel
Mar 24 at 1:01
@SoronelHaetir You would have been mistaken, I am afraid. Such works are routinely published and carry copyright notices. Remember that the work-for-hire rule applies to a non-employee only if the work fits one of the statutory categories, and a written contract explicitly makes it a work-for-hire. In fact, the government often uses a contractor rather than an employee precisely to secure copyright on the work, with the contract assigning the copyright to the government, but not making it a work-for-hire.
– David Siegel
Mar 24 at 1:01
|
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
US Laws are Free of Copyright
Federal Works
17 USC 105 says:
Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.
The phrase "work of the United States Government" has been interpreted to mean any work created by an officer or employee of the government in the course of his or her official duties. See 17 USC 101 for the official definition.
This includes the text of legislation. The official texts of all US laws (and federal regulations) are in the public domain, and no one may claim a copyright on them. Strictly speaking this is not a matter of "fair use". Fair use is an exception for limited uses of copyrighted content. These laws are not protected by copyright at all, and never have been.
State Works
In addition, while works of the various US states are not automatically in the public domain, the text of state laws, and I believe of the various state and local regulations are also in the public domain. This Wikipedia article says:
Federal statutes are in the public domain and no copyright attaches to them. The same is true of court decisions.
In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-Judge panel of the US 11th circuit Court of Appeals wrote:
The general rule that legislative codifications are uncopyrightable derives from an understanding of the nature of law and the basic idea that the People, as the reservoir of all sovereignty, are the source of our law. For purposes of the Copyright Act, this means that the People are the constructive authors of those official legal promulgations of government that represent an exercise of sovereign authority. And because they are the authors, the People are the owners of these works, meaning that the works are intrinsically public domain material and, therefore, uncopyrightable.
The Wikipedia article linked above quotes State of Georgia v. Harrison Co, 548 F.Supp 110, 114 (N.D. Ga 1982) as saying:
The citizens are the authors of the law, and therefore its owners, regardless of who actually drafts the provisions, because the law derives its authority from the consent of the public, expressed through the democratic process.
It also quotes a US copyright office publication as saying:
As a matter of longstanding public policy, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. Likewise, the Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.
However, some states do attempt to claim copyright in electronic versions of their state codes. The 2015 LA Times story "Georgia claims that publishing its state laws for free online is 'terrorism'" reports on a recent infringement suit by the State of Georgia against Carl Malamud , who makes copies of the Georgia Annotated Code available for free online. The state claimed that the annotations are protected by copyright.
In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-Judge panel of the US 11th circuit Court of Appeals found this clim to be without merit.
After a thorough review of the law, and an examination of the annotations, we conclude that no valid copyright interest can be asserted in any part of the OCGA.
...
In most states the “official” code is comprised of statutory text alone, and all agree that a state’s codification cannot be copyrighted because the authorship is ultimately attributable to the People.
...
When a legislature enacts a law, or a court writes an opinion rendering an official interpretation of the law in a case or controversy, they are undisputedly speaking on behalf of the People, who are properly regarded as the author of the work.
...
Because we conclude that no copyright can be held in the annotations, we have no occasion to address the parties’ other arguments regarding originality and fair use.
Non-US Laws
UK laws are protected under Crown Copyright, althogyuh permissive licenses for reproducing copies are easily available. Many other countries have similar provisions. The US, however, does not generally recognize such copyrights.
The position of the US Copyright Office is that:
[T]he Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.
Laws Incorporating Copyrighted Works by Reference
Laws sometimes include by reference privately developed and copyrighted documents. For example, building codes and other safety codes may be developed by private groups, often national non-profit organizations, and incorporated into state laws by reference. This means that the text of the privately developed code is legally part of the law, and the law cannot be fully understood and complied with without reading the code. But the code is a copyrighted work, and the copyright holder may charge for copies.
For example, this official Texas web page says:
The Texas statutes, administrative rules, and local ordinances occasionally adopt, incorporate, or refer to technical codes published by independent organizations. These codes describe scientific and safety standards for structures and discuss specifications for fire safety, electrical systems, plumbing fixtures, construction practices, and many other topics.
...
Codes are not reprinted within the statutes or the local ordinances themselves. They are "adopted by reference" or "incorporated by reference" and are usually available to review at the city clerk's office and at some public libraries. Please contact your local public library or your local government for assistance accessing codes not available online.
Federal Copyrights
However, this does not mean that anything "published by the US government" is in the public domain or is free of copyright. The Federal government often hires contractors to prepare various works. These works are protected by copyright. Frequently, the contracts will assign this copyright to the Federal government, which as 17 USC 105 says:
... is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.
Such works are therefore copyrighted, and the copyright holder is or may be the US Federal Government. They are protected in the same way and to the same degree as works of private authorship.
answered Mar 23 at 16:50
David SiegelDavid Siegel
15.5k3361
1
This excellent answer could be completed by pointing out the problem of laws that incorporate copyrighted material by reference (for example the National Electrical Code)
– Ben Voigt
Mar 23 at 17:15
1
Does this help? sll.texas.gov/law-legislation/building-codes
– Ben Voigt
Mar 23 at 17:21
1
@DavidSiegel They can charge for copies, but you can also make copies of them without violating copyright when the purpose of the copies is to permit compliance with the laws. When using a copy of a law or something referred to in a law, the content of that thing is purely utilitarian and there is no way to separate the creative contents of the law from its utilitarian function of setting the precise rules. No substitute for the work can serve an even remotely analogous function. You can't copyright magic words to charge others for casting effective spells.
– David Schwartz
Mar 23 at 22:31
1
@DavidSiegel I'm responding to "This means that the text of the privately developed code is legally part of the law, and the law cannot be fully understood and complied with without reading the code. But the code is a copyrighted work, and the copyright holder may charge for copies." That's all true, but when the code acts as "magic words" that are purely functional (as laws are), you aren't violating copyright by copying or distributing them. You need a patent to protect functional elements. The works are still copyrighted, like the TLP in Static Controls v. Lexmark.
– David Schwartz
Mar 23 at 23:07
1
@DavidSiegel UK legislation is Crown Copyright and although there is an easy and free licence for what the US calls "fair use", it's certainly not copyright free.
– Andrew Leach
Mar 24 at 8:25
|
show 9 more comments
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38350%2fis-the-u-s-code-copyrighted-by-the-government%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
US Laws are Free of Copyright
Federal Works
17 USC 105 says:
Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.
The phrase "work of the United States Government" has been interpreted to mean any work created by an officer or employee of the government in the course of his or her official duties. See 17 USC 101 for the official definition.
This includes the text of legislation. The official texts of all US laws (and federal regulations) are in the public domain, and no one may claim a copyright on them. Strictly speaking this is not a matter of "fair use". Fair use is an exception for limited uses of copyrighted content. These laws are not protected by copyright at all, and never have been.
State Works
In addition, while works of the various US states are not automatically in the public domain, the text of state laws, and I believe of the various state and local regulations are also in the public domain. This Wikipedia article says:
Federal statutes are in the public domain and no copyright attaches to them. The same is true of court decisions.
In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-Judge panel of the US 11th circuit Court of Appeals wrote:
The general rule that legislative codifications are uncopyrightable derives from an understanding of the nature of law and the basic idea that the People, as the reservoir of all sovereignty, are the source of our law. For purposes of the Copyright Act, this means that the People are the constructive authors of those official legal promulgations of government that represent an exercise of sovereign authority. And because they are the authors, the People are the owners of these works, meaning that the works are intrinsically public domain material and, therefore, uncopyrightable.
The Wikipedia article linked above quotes State of Georgia v. Harrison Co, 548 F.Supp 110, 114 (N.D. Ga 1982) as saying:
The citizens are the authors of the law, and therefore its owners, regardless of who actually drafts the provisions, because the law derives its authority from the consent of the public, expressed through the democratic process.
It also quotes a US copyright office publication as saying:
As a matter of longstanding public policy, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. Likewise, the Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.
However, some states do attempt to claim copyright in electronic versions of their state codes. The 2015 LA Times story "Georgia claims that publishing its state laws for free online is 'terrorism'" reports on a recent infringement suit by the State of Georgia against Carl Malamud , who makes copies of the Georgia Annotated Code available for free online. The state claimed that the annotations are protected by copyright.
In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-Judge panel of the US 11th circuit Court of Appeals found this clim to be without merit.
After a thorough review of the law, and an examination of the annotations, we conclude that no valid copyright interest can be asserted in any part of the OCGA.
...
In most states the “official” code is comprised of statutory text alone, and all agree that a state’s codification cannot be copyrighted because the authorship is ultimately attributable to the People.
...
When a legislature enacts a law, or a court writes an opinion rendering an official interpretation of the law in a case or controversy, they are undisputedly speaking on behalf of the People, who are properly regarded as the author of the work.
...
Because we conclude that no copyright can be held in the annotations, we have no occasion to address the parties’ other arguments regarding originality and fair use.
Non-US Laws
UK laws are protected under Crown Copyright, althogyuh permissive licenses for reproducing copies are easily available. Many other countries have similar provisions. The US, however, does not generally recognize such copyrights.
The position of the US Copyright Office is that:
[T]he Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.
Laws Incorporating Copyrighted Works by Reference
Laws sometimes include by reference privately developed and copyrighted documents. For example, building codes and other safety codes may be developed by private groups, often national non-profit organizations, and incorporated into state laws by reference. This means that the text of the privately developed code is legally part of the law, and the law cannot be fully understood and complied with without reading the code. But the code is a copyrighted work, and the copyright holder may charge for copies.
For example, this official Texas web page says:
The Texas statutes, administrative rules, and local ordinances occasionally adopt, incorporate, or refer to technical codes published by independent organizations. These codes describe scientific and safety standards for structures and discuss specifications for fire safety, electrical systems, plumbing fixtures, construction practices, and many other topics.
...
Codes are not reprinted within the statutes or the local ordinances themselves. They are "adopted by reference" or "incorporated by reference" and are usually available to review at the city clerk's office and at some public libraries. Please contact your local public library or your local government for assistance accessing codes not available online.
Federal Copyrights
However, this does not mean that anything "published by the US government" is in the public domain or is free of copyright. The Federal government often hires contractors to prepare various works. These works are protected by copyright. Frequently, the contracts will assign this copyright to the Federal government, which as 17 USC 105 says:
... is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.
Such works are therefore copyrighted, and the copyright holder is or may be the US Federal Government. They are protected in the same way and to the same degree as works of private authorship.
answered Mar 23 at 16:50
David SiegelDavid Siegel
15.5k3361
1
This excellent answer could be completed by pointing out the problem of laws that incorporate copyrighted material by reference (for example the National Electrical Code)
– Ben Voigt
Mar 23 at 17:15
1
Does this help? sll.texas.gov/law-legislation/building-codes
– Ben Voigt
Mar 23 at 17:21
1
@DavidSiegel They can charge for copies, but you can also make copies of them without violating copyright when the purpose of the copies is to permit compliance with the laws. When using a copy of a law or something referred to in a law, the content of that thing is purely utilitarian and there is no way to separate the creative contents of the law from its utilitarian function of setting the precise rules. No substitute for the work can serve an even remotely analogous function. You can't copyright magic words to charge others for casting effective spells.
– David Schwartz
Mar 23 at 22:31
1
@DavidSiegel I'm responding to "This means that the text of the privately developed code is legally part of the law, and the law cannot be fully understood and complied with without reading the code. But the code is a copyrighted work, and the copyright holder may charge for copies." That's all true, but when the code acts as "magic words" that are purely functional (as laws are), you aren't violating copyright by copying or distributing them. You need a patent to protect functional elements. The works are still copyrighted, like the TLP in Static Controls v. Lexmark.
– David Schwartz
Mar 23 at 23:07
1
@DavidSiegel UK legislation is Crown Copyright and although there is an easy and free licence for what the US calls "fair use", it's certainly not copyright free.
– Andrew Leach
Mar 24 at 8:25
|
show 9 more comments
US Laws are Free of Copyright
Federal Works
17 USC 105 says:
Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.
The phrase "work of the United States Government" has been interpreted to mean any work created by an officer or employee of the government in the course of his or her official duties. See 17 USC 101 for the official definition.
This includes the text of legislation. The official texts of all US laws (and federal regulations) are in the public domain, and no one may claim a copyright on them. Strictly speaking this is not a matter of "fair use". Fair use is an exception for limited uses of copyrighted content. These laws are not protected by copyright at all, and never have been.
State Works
In addition, while works of the various US states are not automatically in the public domain, the text of state laws, and I believe of the various state and local regulations are also in the public domain. This Wikipedia article says:
Federal statutes are in the public domain and no copyright attaches to them. The same is true of court decisions.
In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-Judge panel of the US 11th circuit Court of Appeals wrote:
The general rule that legislative codifications are uncopyrightable derives from an understanding of the nature of law and the basic idea that the People, as the reservoir of all sovereignty, are the source of our law. For purposes of the Copyright Act, this means that the People are the constructive authors of those official legal promulgations of government that represent an exercise of sovereign authority. And because they are the authors, the People are the owners of these works, meaning that the works are intrinsically public domain material and, therefore, uncopyrightable.
The Wikipedia article linked above quotes State of Georgia v. Harrison Co, 548 F.Supp 110, 114 (N.D. Ga 1982) as saying:
The citizens are the authors of the law, and therefore its owners, regardless of who actually drafts the provisions, because the law derives its authority from the consent of the public, expressed through the democratic process.
It also quotes a US copyright office publication as saying:
As a matter of longstanding public policy, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. Likewise, the Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.
However, some states do attempt to claim copyright in electronic versions of their state codes. The 2015 LA Times story "Georgia claims that publishing its state laws for free online is 'terrorism'" reports on a recent infringement suit by the State of Georgia against Carl Malamud , who makes copies of the Georgia Annotated Code available for free online. The state claimed that the annotations are protected by copyright.
In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-Judge panel of the US 11th circuit Court of Appeals found this clim to be without merit.
After a thorough review of the law, and an examination of the annotations, we conclude that no valid copyright interest can be asserted in any part of the OCGA.
...
In most states the “official” code is comprised of statutory text alone, and all agree that a state’s codification cannot be copyrighted because the authorship is ultimately attributable to the People.
...
When a legislature enacts a law, or a court writes an opinion rendering an official interpretation of the law in a case or controversy, they are undisputedly speaking on behalf of the People, who are properly regarded as the author of the work.
...
Because we conclude that no copyright can be held in the annotations, we have no occasion to address the parties’ other arguments regarding originality and fair use.
Non-US Laws
UK laws are protected under Crown Copyright, althogyuh permissive licenses for reproducing copies are easily available. Many other countries have similar provisions. The US, however, does not generally recognize such copyrights.
The position of the US Copyright Office is that:
[T]he Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.
Laws Incorporating Copyrighted Works by Reference
Laws sometimes include by reference privately developed and copyrighted documents. For example, building codes and other safety codes may be developed by private groups, often national non-profit organizations, and incorporated into state laws by reference. This means that the text of the privately developed code is legally part of the law, and the law cannot be fully understood and complied with without reading the code. But the code is a copyrighted work, and the copyright holder may charge for copies.
For example, this official Texas web page says:
The Texas statutes, administrative rules, and local ordinances occasionally adopt, incorporate, or refer to technical codes published by independent organizations. These codes describe scientific and safety standards for structures and discuss specifications for fire safety, electrical systems, plumbing fixtures, construction practices, and many other topics.
...
Codes are not reprinted within the statutes or the local ordinances themselves. They are "adopted by reference" or "incorporated by reference" and are usually available to review at the city clerk's office and at some public libraries. Please contact your local public library or your local government for assistance accessing codes not available online.
Federal Copyrights
However, this does not mean that anything "published by the US government" is in the public domain or is free of copyright. The Federal government often hires contractors to prepare various works. These works are protected by copyright. Frequently, the contracts will assign this copyright to the Federal government, which as 17 USC 105 says:
... is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.
Such works are therefore copyrighted, and the copyright holder is or may be the US Federal Government. They are protected in the same way and to the same degree as works of private authorship.
answered Mar 23 at 16:50
David SiegelDavid Siegel
15.5k3361
1
This excellent answer could be completed by pointing out the problem of laws that incorporate copyrighted material by reference (for example the National Electrical Code)
– Ben Voigt
Mar 23 at 17:15
1
Does this help? sll.texas.gov/law-legislation/building-codes
– Ben Voigt
Mar 23 at 17:21
1
@DavidSiegel They can charge for copies, but you can also make copies of them without violating copyright when the purpose of the copies is to permit compliance with the laws. When using a copy of a law or something referred to in a law, the content of that thing is purely utilitarian and there is no way to separate the creative contents of the law from its utilitarian function of setting the precise rules. No substitute for the work can serve an even remotely analogous function. You can't copyright magic words to charge others for casting effective spells.
– David Schwartz
Mar 23 at 22:31
1
@DavidSiegel I'm responding to "This means that the text of the privately developed code is legally part of the law, and the law cannot be fully understood and complied with without reading the code. But the code is a copyrighted work, and the copyright holder may charge for copies." That's all true, but when the code acts as "magic words" that are purely functional (as laws are), you aren't violating copyright by copying or distributing them. You need a patent to protect functional elements. The works are still copyrighted, like the TLP in Static Controls v. Lexmark.
– David Schwartz
Mar 23 at 23:07
1
@DavidSiegel UK legislation is Crown Copyright and although there is an easy and free licence for what the US calls "fair use", it's certainly not copyright free.
– Andrew Leach
Mar 24 at 8:25
|
show 9 more comments
US Laws are Free of Copyright
Federal Works
17 USC 105 says:
Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.
The phrase "work of the United States Government" has been interpreted to mean any work created by an officer or employee of the government in the course of his or her official duties. See 17 USC 101 for the official definition.
This includes the text of legislation. The official texts of all US laws (and federal regulations) are in the public domain, and no one may claim a copyright on them. Strictly speaking this is not a matter of "fair use". Fair use is an exception for limited uses of copyrighted content. These laws are not protected by copyright at all, and never have been.
State Works
In addition, while works of the various US states are not automatically in the public domain, the text of state laws, and I believe of the various state and local regulations are also in the public domain. This Wikipedia article says:
Federal statutes are in the public domain and no copyright attaches to them. The same is true of court decisions.
In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-Judge panel of the US 11th circuit Court of Appeals wrote:
The general rule that legislative codifications are uncopyrightable derives from an understanding of the nature of law and the basic idea that the People, as the reservoir of all sovereignty, are the source of our law. For purposes of the Copyright Act, this means that the People are the constructive authors of those official legal promulgations of government that represent an exercise of sovereign authority. And because they are the authors, the People are the owners of these works, meaning that the works are intrinsically public domain material and, therefore, uncopyrightable.
The Wikipedia article linked above quotes State of Georgia v. Harrison Co, 548 F.Supp 110, 114 (N.D. Ga 1982) as saying:
The citizens are the authors of the law, and therefore its owners, regardless of who actually drafts the provisions, because the law derives its authority from the consent of the public, expressed through the democratic process.
It also quotes a US copyright office publication as saying:
As a matter of longstanding public policy, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. Likewise, the Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.
However, some states do attempt to claim copyright in electronic versions of their state codes. The 2015 LA Times story "Georgia claims that publishing its state laws for free online is 'terrorism'" reports on a recent infringement suit by the State of Georgia against Carl Malamud , who makes copies of the Georgia Annotated Code available for free online. The state claimed that the annotations are protected by copyright.
In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-Judge panel of the US 11th circuit Court of Appeals found this clim to be without merit.
After a thorough review of the law, and an examination of the annotations, we conclude that no valid copyright interest can be asserted in any part of the OCGA.
...
In most states the “official” code is comprised of statutory text alone, and all agree that a state’s codification cannot be copyrighted because the authorship is ultimately attributable to the People.
...
When a legislature enacts a law, or a court writes an opinion rendering an official interpretation of the law in a case or controversy, they are undisputedly speaking on behalf of the People, who are properly regarded as the author of the work.
...
Because we conclude that no copyright can be held in the annotations, we have no occasion to address the parties’ other arguments regarding originality and fair use.
Non-US Laws
UK laws are protected under Crown Copyright, althogyuh permissive licenses for reproducing copies are easily available. Many other countries have similar provisions. The US, however, does not generally recognize such copyrights.
The position of the US Copyright Office is that:
[T]he Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.
Laws Incorporating Copyrighted Works by Reference
Laws sometimes include by reference privately developed and copyrighted documents. For example, building codes and other safety codes may be developed by private groups, often national non-profit organizations, and incorporated into state laws by reference. This means that the text of the privately developed code is legally part of the law, and the law cannot be fully understood and complied with without reading the code. But the code is a copyrighted work, and the copyright holder may charge for copies.
For example, this official Texas web page says:
The Texas statutes, administrative rules, and local ordinances occasionally adopt, incorporate, or refer to technical codes published by independent organizations. These codes describe scientific and safety standards for structures and discuss specifications for fire safety, electrical systems, plumbing fixtures, construction practices, and many other topics.
...
Codes are not reprinted within the statutes or the local ordinances themselves. They are "adopted by reference" or "incorporated by reference" and are usually available to review at the city clerk's office and at some public libraries. Please contact your local public library or your local government for assistance accessing codes not available online.
Federal Copyrights
However, this does not mean that anything "published by the US government" is in the public domain or is free of copyright. The Federal government often hires contractors to prepare various works. These works are protected by copyright. Frequently, the contracts will assign this copyright to the Federal government, which as 17 USC 105 says:
... is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.
Such works are therefore copyrighted, and the copyright holder is or may be the US Federal Government. They are protected in the same way and to the same degree as works of private authorship.
answered Mar 23 at 16:50
David SiegelDavid Siegel
15.5k3361
US Laws are Free of Copyright
Federal Works
17 USC 105 says:
Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.
The phrase "work of the United States Government" has been interpreted to mean any work created by an officer or employee of the government in the course of his or her official duties. See 17 USC 101 for the official definition.
This includes the text of legislation. The official texts of all US laws (and federal regulations) are in the public domain, and no one may claim a copyright on them. Strictly speaking this is not a matter of "fair use". Fair use is an exception for limited uses of copyrighted content. These laws are not protected by copyright at all, and never have been.
State Works
In addition, while works of the various US states are not automatically in the public domain, the text of state laws, and I believe of the various state and local regulations are also in the public domain. This Wikipedia article says:
Federal statutes are in the public domain and no copyright attaches to them. The same is true of court decisions.
In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-Judge panel of the US 11th circuit Court of Appeals wrote:
The general rule that legislative codifications are uncopyrightable derives from an understanding of the nature of law and the basic idea that the People, as the reservoir of all sovereignty, are the source of our law. For purposes of the Copyright Act, this means that the People are the constructive authors of those official legal promulgations of government that represent an exercise of sovereign authority. And because they are the authors, the People are the owners of these works, meaning that the works are intrinsically public domain material and, therefore, uncopyrightable.
The Wikipedia article linked above quotes State of Georgia v. Harrison Co, 548 F.Supp 110, 114 (N.D. Ga 1982) as saying:
The citizens are the authors of the law, and therefore its owners, regardless of who actually drafts the provisions, because the law derives its authority from the consent of the public, expressed through the democratic process.
It also quotes a US copyright office publication as saying:
As a matter of longstanding public policy, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. Likewise, the Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.
However, some states do attempt to claim copyright in electronic versions of their state codes. The 2015 LA Times story "Georgia claims that publishing its state laws for free online is 'terrorism'" reports on a recent infringement suit by the State of Georgia against Carl Malamud , who makes copies of the Georgia Annotated Code available for free online. The state claimed that the annotations are protected by copyright.
In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-Judge panel of the US 11th circuit Court of Appeals found this clim to be without merit.
After a thorough review of the law, and an examination of the annotations, we conclude that no valid copyright interest can be asserted in any part of the OCGA.
...
In most states the “official” code is comprised of statutory text alone, and all agree that a state’s codification cannot be copyrighted because the authorship is ultimately attributable to the People.
...
When a legislature enacts a law, or a court writes an opinion rendering an official interpretation of the law in a case or controversy, they are undisputedly speaking on behalf of the People, who are properly regarded as the author of the work.
...
Because we conclude that no copyright can be held in the annotations, we have no occasion to address the parties’ other arguments regarding originality and fair use.
Non-US Laws
UK laws are protected under Crown Copyright, althogyuh permissive licenses for reproducing copies are easily available. Many other countries have similar provisions. The US, however, does not generally recognize such copyrights.
The position of the US Copyright Office is that:
[T]he Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.
Laws Incorporating Copyrighted Works by Reference
Laws sometimes include by reference privately developed and copyrighted documents. For example, building codes and other safety codes may be developed by private groups, often national non-profit organizations, and incorporated into state laws by reference. This means that the text of the privately developed code is legally part of the law, and the law cannot be fully understood and complied with without reading the code. But the code is a copyrighted work, and the copyright holder may charge for copies.
For example, this official Texas web page says:
The Texas statutes, administrative rules, and local ordinances occasionally adopt, incorporate, or refer to technical codes published by independent organizations. These codes describe scientific and safety standards for structures and discuss specifications for fire safety, electrical systems, plumbing fixtures, construction practices, and many other topics.
...
Codes are not reprinted within the statutes or the local ordinances themselves. They are "adopted by reference" or "incorporated by reference" and are usually available to review at the city clerk's office and at some public libraries. Please contact your local public library or your local government for assistance accessing codes not available online.
Federal Copyrights
However, this does not mean that anything "published by the US government" is in the public domain or is free of copyright. The Federal government often hires contractors to prepare various works. These works are protected by copyright. Frequently, the contracts will assign this copyright to the Federal government, which as 17 USC 105 says:
... is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.
Such works are therefore copyrighted, and the copyright holder is or may be the US Federal Government. They are protected in the same way and to the same degree as works of private authorship.
answered Mar 23 at 16:50
David SiegelDavid Siegel
15.5k3361
edited Mar 24 at 16:35
answered Mar 23 at 16:50
David SiegelDavid Siegel
15.5k3361
answered Mar 23 at 16:50
David SiegelDavid Siegel
15.5k3361
answered Mar 23 at 16:50
David SiegelDavid Siegel
15.5k3361
15.5k3361
1
This excellent answer could be completed by pointing out the problem of laws that incorporate copyrighted material by reference (for example the National Electrical Code)
– Ben Voigt
Mar 23 at 17:15
1
Does this help? sll.texas.gov/law-legislation/building-codes
– Ben Voigt
Mar 23 at 17:21
1
@DavidSiegel They can charge for copies, but you can also make copies of them without violating copyright when the purpose of the copies is to permit compliance with the laws. When using a copy of a law or something referred to in a law, the content of that thing is purely utilitarian and there is no way to separate the creative contents of the law from its utilitarian function of setting the precise rules. No substitute for the work can serve an even remotely analogous function. You can't copyright magic words to charge others for casting effective spells.
– David Schwartz
Mar 23 at 22:31
1
@DavidSiegel I'm responding to "This means that the text of the privately developed code is legally part of the law, and the law cannot be fully understood and complied with without reading the code. But the code is a copyrighted work, and the copyright holder may charge for copies." That's all true, but when the code acts as "magic words" that are purely functional (as laws are), you aren't violating copyright by copying or distributing them. You need a patent to protect functional elements. The works are still copyrighted, like the TLP in Static Controls v. Lexmark.
– David Schwartz
Mar 23 at 23:07
1
@DavidSiegel UK legislation is Crown Copyright and although there is an easy and free licence for what the US calls "fair use", it's certainly not copyright free.
– Andrew Leach
Mar 24 at 8:25
|
show 9 more comments
1
This excellent answer could be completed by pointing out the problem of laws that incorporate copyrighted material by reference (for example the National Electrical Code)
– Ben Voigt
Mar 23 at 17:15
1
Does this help? sll.texas.gov/law-legislation/building-codes
– Ben Voigt
Mar 23 at 17:21
1
@DavidSiegel They can charge for copies, but you can also make copies of them without violating copyright when the purpose of the copies is to permit compliance with the laws. When using a copy of a law or something referred to in a law, the content of that thing is purely utilitarian and there is no way to separate the creative contents of the law from its utilitarian function of setting the precise rules. No substitute for the work can serve an even remotely analogous function. You can't copyright magic words to charge others for casting effective spells.
– David Schwartz
Mar 23 at 22:31
1
@DavidSiegel I'm responding to "This means that the text of the privately developed code is legally part of the law, and the law cannot be fully understood and complied with without reading the code. But the code is a copyrighted work, and the copyright holder may charge for copies." That's all true, but when the code acts as "magic words" that are purely functional (as laws are), you aren't violating copyright by copying or distributing them. You need a patent to protect functional elements. The works are still copyrighted, like the TLP in Static Controls v. Lexmark.
– David Schwartz
Mar 23 at 23:07
1
@DavidSiegel UK legislation is Crown Copyright and although there is an easy and free licence for what the US calls "fair use", it's certainly not copyright free.
– Andrew Leach
Mar 24 at 8:25
1
1
This excellent answer could be completed by pointing out the problem of laws that incorporate copyrighted material by reference (for example the National Electrical Code)
– Ben Voigt
Mar 23 at 17:15
This excellent answer could be completed by pointing out the problem of laws that incorporate copyrighted material by reference (for example the National Electrical Code)
– Ben Voigt
Mar 23 at 17:15
1
1
Does this help? sll.texas.gov/law-legislation/building-codes
– Ben Voigt
Mar 23 at 17:21
Does this help? sll.texas.gov/law-legislation/building-codes
– Ben Voigt
Mar 23 at 17:21
1
1
@DavidSiegel They can charge for copies, but you can also make copies of them without violating copyright when the purpose of the copies is to permit compliance with the laws. When using a copy of a law or something referred to in a law, the content of that thing is purely utilitarian and there is no way to separate the creative contents of the law from its utilitarian function of setting the precise rules. No substitute for the work can serve an even remotely analogous function. You can't copyright magic words to charge others for casting effective spells.
– David Schwartz
Mar 23 at 22:31
@DavidSiegel They can charge for copies, but you can also make copies of them without violating copyright when the purpose of the copies is to permit compliance with the laws. When using a copy of a law or something referred to in a law, the content of that thing is purely utilitarian and there is no way to separate the creative contents of the law from its utilitarian function of setting the precise rules. No substitute for the work can serve an even remotely analogous function. You can't copyright magic words to charge others for casting effective spells.
– David Schwartz
Mar 23 at 22:31
1
1
@DavidSiegel I'm responding to "This means that the text of the privately developed code is legally part of the law, and the law cannot be fully understood and complied with without reading the code. But the code is a copyrighted work, and the copyright holder may charge for copies." That's all true, but when the code acts as "magic words" that are purely functional (as laws are), you aren't violating copyright by copying or distributing them. You need a patent to protect functional elements. The works are still copyrighted, like the TLP in Static Controls v. Lexmark.
– David Schwartz
Mar 23 at 23:07
@DavidSiegel I'm responding to "This means that the text of the privately developed code is legally part of the law, and the law cannot be fully understood and complied with without reading the code. But the code is a copyrighted work, and the copyright holder may charge for copies." That's all true, but when the code acts as "magic words" that are purely functional (as laws are), you aren't violating copyright by copying or distributing them. You need a patent to protect functional elements. The works are still copyrighted, like the TLP in Static Controls v. Lexmark.
– David Schwartz
Mar 23 at 23:07
1
1
@DavidSiegel UK legislation is Crown Copyright and although there is an easy and free licence for what the US calls "fair use", it's certainly not copyright free.
– Andrew Leach
Mar 24 at 8:25
@DavidSiegel UK legislation is Crown Copyright and although there is an easy and free licence for what the US calls "fair use", it's certainly not copyright free.
– Andrew Leach
Mar 24 at 8:25
|
show 9 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38350%2fis-the-u-s-code-copyrighted-by-the-government%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
Anything published by the United States government does not have a copyright, so you don't need to apply "fair use" in publishing it.
– Ron Beyer
Mar 23 at 14:55
1
It would definitely not be "fair use", but as Ron Beyer said, there is no copyright, so no need to claim "fair use". Hypothetically, the USA could have laws that explicitly make it illegal to publish US laws for money, independent of copyright.
– gnasher729
Mar 23 at 15:22
2
@gnasher729 Such a law might be found invalid on Due Process grounds, as the wide publication of laws is essential to inform people what the law is, so thay can follow it. In addition it would probably be invalid on Free Press grounds, under the First Amendment, directly or as incorporated against the states under the 14th. The Pentagon Papers case would be relevant here. But the government has never tried to pass such a law, and it would be politically highly unlikely to try. So there is no case law exactly on point.
– David Siegel
Mar 23 at 17:04
2
@DM thanks for the link. But the suggestion of gnasher729 that a law might prohibit publishing the US Code for profit is not the same as a copyright claim. I think such a law would be invalid, however, on various grounds.
– David Siegel
Mar 23 at 19:36
2
@SoronelHaetir You would have been mistaken, I am afraid. Such works are routinely published and carry copyright notices. Remember that the work-for-hire rule applies to a non-employee only if the work fits one of the statutory categories, and a written contract explicitly makes it a work-for-hire. In fact, the government often uses a contractor rather than an employee precisely to secure copyright on the work, with the contract assigning the copyright to the government, but not making it a work-for-hire.
– David Siegel
Mar 24 at 1:01