Re: Copyright of laws

On Thu, 17 Nov 1994, John J. Norris wrote:
>
> Terry Carroll, carrollt[_at_]netcom.com, of Santa Clara, CA
> replied (and left me confused):
>
> >However, it is up to each nation to determine if such works are
> >copyrighted, even if they originate in another nation. In the U.S., for
> >example, the view is that no law is copyrighted, whether it's a lowly
> >municipal regulation, or a statute of another nation. This is regardless
> >of whether the statute enjoys copyright protection in its native country.
>
>
> I thought the Berne Convention set an international standard for
> duration of copyright based on the native country's domestic copyright
> laws.

Berne commands "national treatment," i.e., each nation must treat works that originate in other signatory nations the same as (or better than) it would if the work were by its own nationals (i.e., citizens). Thus, the U.S. treats a U.K. work the same as if it were a work originating in the U.S.

The U.S. position is that laws originating in the U.S. are not subject to copyright (this is not in the copyright statute, but is general policy). Therefore, laws originating outside of the U.S. are not subject to copyright, either.

Here's a section of my FAQ that touches on this in an incidental way:

3.6) Can the government copyright its works?

 [much deleted]

A related question that sometimes comes up is whether a government may copyright its laws. In the case of the federal government, because of [17 U.S.C. 105], the answer is clearly that it cannot. With state governments, it's a little less clear. There is no statute, case, or regulation that indicates that a state cannot copyright its laws. However, it is the position of the U.S. Copyright Office that a state's laws may not be copyrighted. The Compendium of Copyright Office Practices (Compendium II) section 206.01 states, "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."

Now, the Compendium II does not have force of law. But this does indicate that any state trying to register a copyright in its laws would be refused registration by the Copyright Office. As a result, it would either have to successfully sue the Office to force registration, or it would bear the burden of establishing that its work was indeed copyrighted in the event of an infringement suit (normally, a registration fulfills that burden). It's a safe bet that any state or city trying to assert a copyright in its laws would have an uphill battle ahead of it.

> If the Berne does give UK copyright law teeth in the US, then
> the UK copyright law itself is copyrighted under US law.

But Berne is not intended to give UK copyright law teeth in the US -- it is intended to give US copyright law teeth in the US, as applied to UK works.

--
Terry Carroll          | 
Santa Clara, CA        |  Quayle/Bono in '96.
carrollt[_at_]netcom.com    |