Re: Australian Copyright Question

On 18 Dec 2002, David Turner wrote:

> On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 02:31, Terry Carroll wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Ralph D. Clifford wrote:
> >
> > > Are Australian High Court Opinions in the public domain?
> >
> > They are in the US.
>
> I don't think 17 USC 105 applies to works by foreign governments.

It doesn't (or to US state, local or other non-US-federal governments, for that matter); but as a general policy in the US, no edict of law, whether by a domestic or foreign government, is covered by US copyright.

This policy is best summed up in the Compendium of Copyright Office Practices (Compendium II), section 206.01: "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments."

> I think you probably meant "US court opinions" by "they", but that's
> only clear if you already know about section 105.

No, I was responding to the question about Australian High Court opinions.

-- 
Terry Carroll        |  
Santa Clara, CA      |   "The parties are advised to chill." 
carroll[_at_]tjc.com      |       - Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc.,
Modell delendus est  |         no. 98-56577 (9th Cir. July 24, 2002)