I did some further investigating into this. The sources that I and John refer to are from 1976, which is pre-Berne (US in force: March 1, 1989). So this would further cast doubts on the claims of copyright abroad of the US government.
Regards, Maarten -- Kennisland | www.kl.nl <http://www.kl.nl/> | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra > On 01 Aug 2016, at 10:20, Maarten Zeinstra <m...@kl.nl> wrote: > > Hi Cem, > > I believe this was already answered John Cowan, I was proven wrong. US does > assert copyright for government works in other jurisdictions. Wikipedia > provides these sources: > > “The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works > is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. Works > of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted. There are no > valid policy reasons for denying such protection to United States Government > works in foreign countries, or for precluding the Government from making > licenses for the use of its works abroad.” - House Report No. 94-1476 > > and > > “3.1.7 Does the Government have copyright protection in U.S. Government > works in other countries? > Yes, the copyright exclusion for works of the U.S. Government is not intended > to have any impact on protection of these works abroad (S. REP. NO. 473, 94th > Cong., 2d Sess. 56 (1976)). Therefore, the U.S. Government may obtain > protection in other countries depending on the treatment of government works > by the national copyright law of the particular country. Copyright is > sometimes asserted by U.S. Government agencies outside the United States.” > http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#317 > <http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#317> > > However I am not sure how this would work with the Berne Convention, > especially article 7(8) which states: ‘[..] the term shall be governed by the > legislation of the country where protection is claimed; however, unless the > legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the > term fixed in the country of origin of the work.’ If the U.S. term of > protection is 0 years, than other countries would also apply 0 years. > > @John, @Cem: do you have some case law about this? I would like to verify > this with my academic network in the U.S. If not, any license you want to > apply on this material is immediately void (which is only a theoretical > problem imo). > > Regards, > > Maarten > > -- > Kennisland | www.kl.nl <http://www.kl.nl/> | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 > | @mzeinstra > >> On 29 Jul 2016, at 19:37, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) >> <cem.f.karan....@mail.mil <mailto:cem.f.karan....@mail.mil>> wrote: >> >> I'm sorry for getting back late to this, the lawyer I'm working with was >> called away for a bit and couldn't reply. >> >> I asked specifically about this case; in our lawyer's opinion, the US >> Government does have copyright in foreign (to the US) countries. He says >> that there is case law where the US has asserted this, but he is checking to >> see if he can find case law regarding this to definitively answer the >> question. >> >> Thanks, >> Cem Karan >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org >>> <mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org>] On Behalf Of Maarten >>> Zeinstra >>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 7:49 AM >>> To: license-discuss@opensource.org <mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org> >>> Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com <mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> >>> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-discuss] US Army Research Laboratory >>> Open Source License proposal >>> >>> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the >>> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links >>> contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a >>> Web browser. >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Yes I am suggesting that if the country of origin of the work does not >>> assign copyright to the work then no copyright is assigned world- >>> wide. My reasoning is that there is no entity to assign that copyright to. >>> >>> An example in a different field might support my argument. >>> >>> In the Netherlands we automatically assign (not transfer, which is >>> important here) any IP rights of the employee to the employer if works >>> are created within the duties of the employee. That means that the employer >>> is the rights holder. This rights holder is consequently also >>> recognised as the rights holder in other jurisdictions. Who might, given a >>> similar situation in their own jurisdiction, normally assign the >>> right to the employee. >>> >>> Now if there is no rights holder to begin with (the U.S. waives it rights >>> on government produced works as I understand, the Netherlands >>> government does the same), then no foreign rights can be assigned as well. >>> Hence the work must be in the public domain world wide. >>> >>> I have more experience with Creative Commons-licenses than with Open Source >>> license, but in CC licenses the license exists for the >>> duration of the right. I assume all Open Source licenses are basically the >>> same in this regard. In that sense it does not matter which license >>> is applied as the license is immediately void, since there is no underlying >>> right to license. >>> >>> Finally, in the past I have advised the dutch government to adopt CC0 to >>> make the public domain status of their works clear. They have >>> adopted this since ~2011 on their main site: >>> Caution-https://www.government.nl/copyright >>> <caution-https://www.government.nl/copyright> < Caution- >>> https://www.government.nl/copyright <https://www.government.nl/copyright> > >>> (english version). I advise the US army does something similar as well. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Maarten Zeinstra >>> >>> -- >>> Kennisland | Caution-www.kl.nl <http://caution-www.kl.nl/> < >>> Caution-http://www.kl.nl <caution-http://www.kl.nl> > | t +31205756720 | m >>> +31643053919 | @mzeinstra >>> >>> >>> On 24 Jul 2016, at 08:26, Philippe Ombredanne <pombreda...@nexb.com >>> <mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com> < Caution-mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com >>> <mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com> > > wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com >>> <mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> < Caution-mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com >>> <mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> > > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> It is true that this public domain result doesn't apply outside >>> the U.S. But >>> if you apply a valid open source license to it – such as Apache >>> 2.0 – that >>> should be good enough for everyone who doesn't live in the U.S. >>> and >>> irrelevant for us here. >>> >>> >>> >>> Larry, are you suggesting that Cem considers using some statement more >>> or less like this, rather than a new license? >>> This U.S. Federal Government work is not copyrighted and dedicated >>> to the public domain in the USA. Alternatively, the Apache-2.0 >>> license applies >>> outside of the USA ? >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Maarten Zeinstra <m...@kl.nl >>> <mailto:m...@kl.nl> < Caution-mailto:m...@kl.nl <mailto:m...@kl.nl> > > >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Is that the correct interpretation of the Berne convention? The >>> convention >>> assigns copyright to foreigners of a signatory state with at >>> least as strong >>> protection as own nationals. Since US government does not >>> attract copyright >>> I am unsure if they can attract copyright in other >>> jurisdictions. >>> >>> >>> >>> Maarten, are you suggesting then that the lack of copyright for a U.S. >>> Federal >>> Government work would just then apply elsewhere too and that using an >>> alternative Apache license would not even be needed? >>> >>> -- >>> Cordially >>> Philippe Ombredanne >>> >>> +1 650 799 0949 | pombreda...@nexb.com <mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com> < >>> Caution-mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com <mailto:pombreda...@nexb.com> > >>> DejaCode : What's in your code?! at Caution-http://www.dejacode.com >>> <caution-http://www.dejacode.com> < Caution-http://www.dejacode.com >>> <caution-http://www.dejacode.com> > >>> nexB Inc. at Caution-http://www.nexb.com <caution-http://www.nexb.com> >>> < Caution-http://www.nexb.com <caution-http://www.nexb.com> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> License-discuss mailing list >>> License-discuss@opensource.org <mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org> >>> < Caution-mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org >>> <mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org> > >>> >>> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >>> >>> <caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> License-discuss mailing list >> License-discuss@opensource.org <mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org> >> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >> <https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss>
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
