<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    Wouldn't the government's copyright interest outside of the US be
    limited by the Rule of the Shorter Term under the Berne Convention?
    And so where the term in the US is "zero," wouldn't it be zero in
    those countries that observe the Rule of the Shorter Term?<br>
    <br>
    Pam<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek<br>
      Chestek Legal<br>
      PO Box 2492<br>
      Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
      919-800-8033<br>
      <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
      <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
      <br>
    </div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/28/2019 9:34 PM, John Cowan wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAD2gp_SDC-m18YCJFF_kKYv1WbK6v5M7_svKgz5AORy+ktCO2A@mail.gmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div dir="ltr"><br>
        </div>
        <br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 5:33
            PM Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss <<a
              href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org"
              moz-do-not-send="true">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>>
            wrote:<br>
          </div>
          <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br>
          </div>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
            0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
            rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
            <div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
              <div>
                <div>Yes!  Even to say it’s in the public domain is
                  misleading.  It’s not a USC term.</div>
              </div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>It's true that "public domain" is not *defined* in 17
            U.S.C., but it is *used* there seven times.  So turning to a
            dictionary, we find this in the American Heritage
            Dictionary, 5th edition: "The condition of not being
            protected by a patent or copyright and therefore being
            available to the public for use without charge", and this in
            Merriam Webster Online: "[T]he realm embracing property
            rights that belong to the community at large, are
            unprotected by copyright or patent, and are subject to
            appropriation by anyone[.]"  So the term is well-defined.</div>
          <div> </div>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
            0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
            rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
            <div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
              <div>Saying something from the Gov’t is “public domain”
                typically just means it went through a public release
                process and there's no intention to assert rights.</div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>No, it means that there is no copyright owner.  17
            U.S.C. 
            §105 says: "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."  The term “work of the United States
            Government” is defined as "[a] work prepared by an officer
            or
            employee of the United States Government as part of that
            person’s official duties"</div>
          <div> </div>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
            0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
            rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
            <div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
              <div>While works of Gov’t employees typically don't have
                copyright protection under Title 17 and could easily be
                released "into the public domain”,  </div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>They *are* in the public domain (unless they were not
            part of the author's official duties).</div>
          <div> </div>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
            0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
            rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
            <div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
              <div>that doesn’t mean they have to release it, can
                release it,</div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>If by "release" you mean "publish", you are of course
            right.   But if by "release" you mean "place in the public
            domain", you are wrong, as shown above.</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
            0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
            rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
            <div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
              <div> or that there aren’t other mechanisms for releasing
                it NOT “into the public domain.”</div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>There are no such mechanisms.  A copyrighted work can
            have its copyright transferred, but a work that is not in
            copyright (whether because the copyright has been expired or
            forfeited, or was expressly waived by the owner, or never
            existed in the first place) cannot be removed from the
            public domain except by Act of Congress.  This has happened
            several times in the past, notably 1893 (restoring copyright
            forfeited for lack of certain formalities if reregistered),
            1919, 1941 (for the benefit of foreign authors whose
            copyrights expired during the war, when they could not renew
            them), 1976 (extension to life+50), and 1989 (extension to
            life+70), plus a number of private bills in the 19C for the
            benefit of specific authors.</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
            0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
            rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
            <div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
              <div>Gov’t regularly distributes software that otherwise
                has *no* Title 17 protections to foreign and domestic
                recipients, under contractual terms.</div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>So they may, but if the recipients transfer the software
            to third parties, the recipients are in breach but the third
            parties are not, for lack of privity and because there is no
            in rem right in the nature of copyright.  Much the same is
            true of classified materials (as opposed to the U.K. where
            receiving and further disseminating such materials is
            separately criminalized.</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>