Re: Copyright in California Regulations

On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Karsten M. Self <kmself[_at_]ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not looking to exempt works of state and local governments. It's
> > very clear that _most_ works of non-federal government are subject to
> > copyright. I'm pointing to the longstanding policy that statutes,
> > public ordinances, regulations and other edicts of government are not
> > subject to copyright, regardless of whether the government in question
> > is the U.S. federal government, a state or local government, or a
> > foreign government.
>
> IIRC, this contradicts accounts I've heard from Australia, in which
> either law, executive policy, or a special reports, produced and/or
> published by the government, were withheld from publication under
> copyright, after the government had decided it didn't want the material
> made public. Relating to privacy/security issues, again, IIRC.

It doesn't actually contradict it, because our discussion was of U.S. law. Although Australia may choose to extend Australian copyright to its laws (as England extends UK copyright to its laws, for example), the United States does not extend US copyright to any laws. This is part of the national treatment, and in any event is expressly allowed for in Berne.

-- 
Terry Carroll       | "Report of the Committee On Governmental Affairs,
Santa Clara, CA     | United States Senate, To Accompany S. 1364, An Act To
carroll[_at_]tjc.com     | Eliminate Unnecessary and Wasteful Federal Reports."
Modell delendus est |  - Title of U.S. Senate Report 105-187, May 11, 1998