Re: Using NASA Imagery
Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes: If this is the case, then I guess we have quite an big problem, as I guess such code and especially data is to be found in quite a large amount of places. Actually, I don't think that's much of an issue. Software seems to be mostly unaffected as US government entities usually properly license their works, e.g., under the NASA Open Source Agreement in NASA's case. When it comes to images and related data I suppose there will be more problems. FlightGear (the LaRCSim code seems to miss proper licensing anyway) and VegaStrike are probably affected. Celestia seems to use ESA data (for which I could not find a license, but that's another story). Maybe we also should contact our friends at Wikipedia and other open content projects. I've documented this issue in a blog post (http://www.quantenblog.net/free-software/us-copyright-international), which might be used as a reference. Hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Using NASA Imagery
Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes: * Don Armstrong d...@debian.org [090117 20:01]: Because NASA as a US government agency can't copyright things it produces directly, they're usually DFSG free. (It's the equivalent of public domain in the US.) [Specific examples of work are needed to figure out whether that's the case in a specific instance.] I know this is general accepted knowledge, but has anyone ever asked a layer knowledgable in international copyright law about it? I just asked someone working on international copyright law. The key point is that you always have to apply the law of the country where you want to distribute the work (principle of national treatment, Schutzlandprinzip in German). So, while there is no copyright on NASA images in the US, it is still protected by the respective laws in any country that has signed the Berne convention or a similar international treaty. I am not sure whether this makes it non-free, though. The DSFG do not mention that the rules have to apply worldwide. Also, the GPLv2 explicitely allows geographical limitations. Hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Using NASA Imagery
* Hendrik Weimer hend...@enyo.de [090120 19:13]: I just asked someone working on international copyright law. The key point is that you always have to apply the law of the country where you want to distribute the work (principle of national treatment, Schutzlandprinzip in German). So, while there is no copyright on NASA images in the US, it is still protected by the respective laws in any country that has signed the Berne convention or a similar international treaty. I am not sure whether this makes it non-free, though. The DSFG do not mention that the rules have to apply worldwide. Also, the GPLv2 explicitely allows geographical limitations. While I also see no specific problem with some countries having problems with specific software, this looks like US government made works miss permissions even to copy and distribute in practically everywhere outside the USA. (After all, Debian has mirrors in many countries and there are people selling the CDs and DVDs everywhere). If this is the case, then I guess we have quite an big problem, as I guess such code and especially data is to be found in quite a large amount of places. I guess the problem gets even bigger as people consider them public domain so do not properly record the author. (And the question who is the copyright holder might even be quite complex. I'd guess most juristictions consider it to be an equivalent of work for hire, so the copyright outside the US might actually be in the hands of some organisational unit of the USA). On the other hand, waiting till someone sues will not make the situation much easier (though if it really is only one copyright holder for everything, it could wait until it gets profiable...) Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Using NASA Imagery
* Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com [090119 01:58]: Having said all that, the meaning of this paragraph -- to me, at least -- is straight forward. It says that the U.S. Government, having decided to deny itself a copyright in the U.S., does not preclude itself from accepting a copyright from a different jurisdiction. If the Canadians wish to grant U.S. Governments works a copyright, then § 105 doesn't stop that. Nor does it stop the U.S. Government from enforcing such a copyright once it is issued. What it *doesn't* say is that a foreign government is required to grant a copyright. It's up to them... if they do, then the U.S. will take it... if they don't, not a big deal. So I think that alone is like having one country where copyright ends say 5 years after the death of the author. If we have some software from an author in this country that dies 6 years ago, it will be public domain there, but if I am not mistaken it will not be public domain in the rest of the world. Now, I will admit I am not a Berne Convention expert... but I was under the impression that a big part of that convention was the idea of reciprocity. A member nation is obligated to provide coyright protection domestically IF the author's home nation provides protection. Put another way, a foreign nation has no obligation to provide protection if the home nation does NOT provide protection. Which, to me at least, means a foreign government is under no obligation to protect U.S. government works. But, like I said before, it's really a matter of local jurisdiction. I think the appropiate paragraphs are those: (§122 UrHG): | (3) Der Schutz nach Absatz 1 kann durch Rechtsverordnung des | Bundesministers der Justiz für ausländische Staatsangehörige | beschränkt werden, die keinem Mitgliedstaat der Berner Übereinkunft | zum Schutze von Werken der Literatur und der Kunst angehören und zur | Zeit des Erscheinens des Werkes weder im Geltungsbereich dieses | Gesetzes noch in einem anderen Mitgliedstaat ihren Wohnsitz haben, | wenn der Staat, dem sie angehören, deutschen Staatsangehörigen für | ihre Werke keinen genügenden Schutz gewährt. This (I think it is about works originally published in Germany by someone not German or EU citizen) says that the interior ministry can waive the rights of citizens of non-berne-convention members that do no live in Germany and their state does not protect the works of Germans. | (4) Im übrigen genießen ausländische Staatsangehörige den | urheberrechtlichen Schutz nach Inhalt der Staatsverträge. Bestehen | keine Staatsverträge, so besteht für solche Werke urheberrechtlicher | Schutz, soweit in dem Staat, dem der Urheber angehört, nach einer | Bekanntmachung des Bundesministers der Justiz im Bundesgesetzblatt | deutsche Staatsangehörige für ihre Werke einen entsprechenden Schutz | genießen. As I as non-lawyer read them, they says that the state can make treaties with other states about what copyright is given to members of the other state. If there is no treaty with a state, then its citizens are given the same rights as Germans are given when the ministry of justice announced that their country protects the copyright of German citizens. I.e. the reciprocity is if you give my citizens copyright, I give it to yours. I from what I remember to have read, it is quite common that the rules of the local state apply and not the rules of the state of the author. (At least I remember that the end of copyright of a work differs for the same work even between the countries with Anglo-Saxon law systems). I'm even less able to read english law texts, but 159 of British Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says: | (1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for applying in | relation to a country to which this Part does not extend any of the | provisions of this Part specified in the Order, so as to secure that | those provisions-- | (a) apply in relation to persons who are citizens or subjects of that | country or are domiciled or resident there, as they apply to persons | who are British citizens or are domiciled or resident in the United | Kingdom, or and later | (3) Except in the case of a Convention country or another member State | of the European Economic Community, Her Majesty shall not make an | Order in Council under this section in relation to a country unless | satisfied that provision has been or will be made under the law of | that country, in respect of the class of works to which the Order | relates, giving adequate protection to the owners of copyright under | this Part. Which I also read as copyright for all works of this class here under our rules, as far as the home state of the copyright holder would also protect this class of works. And I think with class of works it means classes like texts, paintings, radio broadcasts, software, ... and not classes like made as work for the government. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link
Re: Using NASA Imagery
In message 20090119110756.ga18...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de, Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes * Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com [090119 01:58]: Having said all that, the meaning of this paragraph -- to me, at least -- is straight forward. It says that the U.S. Government, having decided to deny itself a copyright in the U.S., does not preclude itself from accepting a copyright from a different jurisdiction. If the Canadians wish to grant U.S. Governments works a copyright, then § 105 doesn't stop that. Nor does it stop the U.S. Government from enforcing such a copyright once it is issued. What it *doesn't* say is that a foreign government is required to grant a copyright. It's up to them... if they do, then the U.S. will take it... if they don't, not a big deal. So I think that alone is like having one country where copyright ends say 5 years after the death of the author. If we have some software from an author in this country that dies 6 years ago, it will be public domain there, but if I am not mistaken it will not be public domain in the rest of the world. That's what I understood. I thought it was equality of treatment, not reciprocity. Corporate works in the US have (I believe) a lifetime of 95 years. In Europe it's 50 or 70 (probably 70). So, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, it is quite possible for a US work to be copyright in the US but public domain in Europe, if it's between 70 and 95 years old. Equality says if a European company could sue in Europe, then an American company must be able to also. If the European company can't sue, then neither can an American company in like circumstances. Actually, that also means a European-created work can be copyright in the US after the European copyright has expired ... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Using NASA Imagery
* Don Armstrong d...@debian.org [090117 20:01]: On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Miriam Ruiz wrote: Does anyone know if NASA conditions [1] are DFSG-free? According to what's written there, it seems to me that they're public domain (NASA still images; audio files; video; and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format, generally are not copyrighted.), but I want to make sure. Because NASA as a US government agency can't copyright things it produces directly, they're usually DFSG free. (It's the equivalent of public domain in the US.) [Specific examples of work are needed to figure out whether that's the case in a specific instance.] I know this is general accepted knowledge, but has anyone ever asked a layer knowledgable in international copyright law about it? It is sure public domain in the US, but I see no reason why it should be public domain outside. From what I have read the US goverment holds the copyright outside the US and the only way it could be public domain in other countries is that either US explicitly waives it rights even in other countries (which I think it does not) or other countries' law making it public domain. As other countries usually do not have a section stating things made for the US government are public domain, the only argument I've found is that most countries have some reciprocity for copyright of foreign subjects. But trying to understand the German law text (as some example, as I hope to understand that best), I think it says copyright of foreigners is protected if their country would protect the copyright of locals, and then applies the local rules of what is copyrightable and makes no exception for things that would not have been protectable abroad. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Using NASA Imagery
On Sunday 18 January 2009 02:29:22 am Bernhard R. Link wrote: * Don Armstrong d...@debian.org [090117 20:01]: On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Miriam Ruiz wrote: Does anyone know if NASA conditions [1] are DFSG-free? According to what's written there, it seems to me that they're public domain (NASA still images; audio files; video; and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format, generally are not copyrighted.), but I want to make sure. Because NASA as a US government agency can't copyright things it produces directly, they're usually DFSG free. (It's the equivalent of public domain in the US.) [Specific examples of work are needed to figure out whether that's the case in a specific instance.] I know this is general accepted knowledge, but has anyone ever asked a layer knowledgable in international copyright law about it? It is sure public domain in the US, but I see no reason why it should be public domain outside. From what I have read the US goverment holds the copyright outside the US and the only way it could be public domain in other countries is that either US explicitly waives it rights even in other countries (which I think it does not) or other countries' law making it public domain. The US has done all it can on this via its domestic laws... the relevent section being: -- § 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works 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. -- That is the only source of copyright that the United States has control over. Now, if a foreign government wants to say that, within their borders, works of the United States government are still copyrighted and controlled by the same, there really isn't a whole lot the US can do about it. But, by the same token, a government can also declare that the GPL is unenforceable and that the author has not issued a valid license. I sincerely hope we would not let a local government decision like that prevent distribution of GPLed works. Similarly, as my government has gone out of its way to share its creative works, I would hope the FOSS community avails themselves of it. That, however, doesn't make it an open and shut case: -- § 101. Definitions A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties. -- Which means you have to look closely at who is doing the work. A contractor/vendor for the government may not fall under this provision, depending on the kinds of work that is being done. There is also a weird exception for certain standard reference data where the Commerce Secretary can actually obtain a copyright. But note that such copyright requires affirmative action on the part of the Secretary, and presumably would come with notice. As other countries usually do not have a section stating things made for the US government are public domain, the only argument I've found is that most countries have some reciprocity for copyright of foreign subjects. But trying to understand the German law text (as some example, as I hope to understand that best), I think it says copyright of foreigners is protected if their country would protect the copyright of locals, and then applies the local rules of what is copyrightable and makes no exception for things that would not have been protectable abroad. The above only applies if it's true that the U.S. holds a copyright beyond its borders. Your logic is sound, but the premise is unsubstantiated. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: skell...@gmail.com w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/ Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Using NASA Imagery
* Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com [090118 19:37]: The US has done all it can on this via its domestic laws... the relevent section being: -- § 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works 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. -- That is the only source of copyright that the United States has control over. No, there could for example also a law that the US government is not allowed to enforce copyright of government made works outside of the USA. Or at least some promise not to do. But, by the same token, a government can also declare that the [...] Of course governments can do many stupid things (some people may even claim copyright at all is evil and stupid), but my question was not about some theoretical country, but about the current state of the world. I'm not a layer but I'm not sure about Germany's law and perhaps it might be similar in many other countries might do the same. Does anyone have any information about if such US goverment works are really free outside the US? Or can someone try to understand what in http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0105000-notes.html is the meaning of 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. and explain? Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Using NASA Imagery
On Sunday 18 January 2009 03:24:52 pm Bernhard R. Link wrote: * Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com [090118 19:37]: The US has done all it can on this via its domestic laws... the relevent section being: -- § 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works 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. -- That is the only source of copyright that the United States has control over. No, there could for example also a law that the US government is not allowed to enforce copyright of government made works outside of the USA. Or at least some promise not to do. That seems like an awfully specific request, if you ask me. The GPL, for example, doesn't promise the Author won't or can't sue... it simply says a license is granted, which comes with all manner of implications. I think § 105 is the best you are going to see out of the US government. But, by the same token, a government can also declare that the [...] Of course governments can do many stupid things (some people may even claim copyright at all is evil and stupid), but my question was not about some theoretical country, but about the current state of the world. I'm not a layer but I'm not sure about Germany's law and perhaps it might be similar in many other countries might do the same. Does anyone have any information about if such US goverment works are really free outside the US? Well, lucky for us, I happen to be a trained lawyer. Although, in the interest of full disclosure, I have not paid by bar dues and thus am not an actual factual lawyer, but I play one on the internet from time to time. Or can someone try to understand what in http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0105000-notes.html is the meaning of 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. and explain? Couple of critical points about this. First up, nothing on that page is law in the enforceable sense. That page is from the House Committee Report on the 1976 Copyright Act. Now, unlike most legislative committee reports, this particular house report has been given a LOT of weight by courts when trying to figure out what the Congress meant when it enacted revised Title 17. The net result is you see this report cited a lot because it provides useful contextual clues. Don't ask me why this ONE report gets special privileges while the others are treated like garbage. Having said all that, the meaning of this paragraph -- to me, at least -- is straight forward. It says that the U.S. Government, having decided to deny itself a copyright in the U.S., does not preclude itself from accepting a copyright from a different jurisdiction. If the Canadians wish to grant U.S. Governments works a copyright, then § 105 doesn't stop that. Nor does it stop the U.S. Government from enforcing such a copyright once it is issued. What it *doesn't* say is that a foreign government is required to grant a copyright. It's up to them... if they do, then the U.S. will take it... if they don't, not a big deal. Now, I will admit I am not a Berne Convention expert... but I was under the impression that a big part of that convention was the idea of reciprocity. A member nation is obligated to provide coyright protection domestically IF the author's home nation provides protection. Put another way, a foreign nation has no obligation to provide protection if the home nation does NOT provide protection. Which, to me at least, means a foreign government is under no obligation to protect U.S. government works. But, like I said before, it's really a matter of local jurisdiction. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: skell...@gmail.com w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/ Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Actual legal training: thanks (was: Using NASA Imagery)
Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com writes: Well, lucky for us, I happen to be a trained lawyer. Although, in the interest of full disclosure, I have not paid by bar dues and thus am not an actual factual lawyer, but I play one on the internet from time to time. Have I said recently how grateful I am that you come here to share your actual legal training with us? Well, regardless, I reiterate my thanks. Legal training and passion for free software are all too infrequently found in the same person. -- \ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “I think so, | `\ Brain, but can the Gummi Worms really live in peace with the | _o__) Marshmallow Chicks?” —_Pinky and The Brain_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Actual legal training: thanks (was: Using NASA Imagery)
On Sunday 18 January 2009 10:00:01 pm Ben Finney wrote: Sean Kellogg skell...@gmail.com writes: Well, lucky for us, I happen to be a trained lawyer. Although, in the interest of full disclosure, I have not paid by bar dues and thus am not an actual factual lawyer, but I play one on the internet from time to time. Have I said recently how grateful I am that you come here to share your actual legal training with us? Well, regardless, I reiterate my thanks. Legal training and passion for free software are all too infrequently found in the same person. Thanks. It's helpful that I don't actually practice, otherwise the firm I would be working for would likely never allow me to contribute here. But since I write software for a living, use Debian in my everyday life, and generally believe in the goals of the project, it's nice to be able to contribute from time to time... even if it means I don't always see eye to eye with debian-legal about the meaning of the DSFG :) -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: skell...@gmail.com w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/ Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Using NASA Imagery
Does anyone know if NASA conditions [1] are DFSG-free? According to what's written there, it seems to me that they're public domain (NASA still images; audio files; video; and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format, generally are not copyrighted.), but I want to make sure. Greetings, Miry [1] http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Using NASA Imagery
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Miriam Ruiz wrote: Does anyone know if NASA conditions [1] are DFSG-free? According to what's written there, it seems to me that they're public domain (NASA still images; audio files; video; and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format, generally are not copyrighted.), but I want to make sure. Because NASA as a US government agency can't copyright things it produces directly, they're usually DFSG free. (It's the equivalent of public domain in the US.) [Specific examples of work are needed to figure out whether that's the case in a specific instance.] Don Armstrong -- Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it. -- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
