Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-NCGov
The template author has truncated the relevant section of the law, North Carolina General Statutes § 132‑1(b) says "The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people. Therefore, it is the policy of this State that the people may obtain copies of their public records and public information free or at minimal cost unless otherwise specifically provided by law" this can in no way be interpreted by us as meaning that the state has released the content with a commons compatible licence. Firstly who are "the people" ? the Constitution of State of North Carolina opens with "We, the people of the State of North Carolina" so therefore we can assume that this right is only open to residences of North Carolina. Secondly the right is only that they can obtain "copies of their public records and public information free or at minimal cost" the right does not extend to making derivative works (a key pillar of COM:L) it does not allow for onward distribution nor is it clear if these rights extend to corporations and if works can be re-used for profit. The second link provided to a State Libary source is also truncated; the author of the template missed off "Responsibility for making an independent legal assessment of an item and securing any necessary permissions ultimately rests with persons desiring to use the item." which shows that there exists some doubt even in the State Library of North Carolina as to the exact copyright nature of government work. Without an COM:OTRS ticket from an officer within the North Carolina government significant doubt exists as to the nature of works of the North Carolina government and this template should be deleted and works using it should be tagged with {{subst:npd}}. LGA talkedits 04:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep Good enough for an official statement from the State Library, good enough for Commons. The template is still being drafted, created yesterday, and should not be deleted while being under active discussion, see Template talk:PD-NCGov. The nomination confuses statements in the statute with regard to property ownership with those about possible charge for access, these are two separate things, one being a corollary of the other as the text clearly states. The argument put forward in the nomination that the State Library's statement that the user needs to make their own assessment is completely bog standard for libraries, the statement itself when read in full is a very clear statement that these works are public domain. The same could be said of "No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use" which is actually included in the bog standard CC-BY-4.0 statement as published by Creative Commons, and has never been a reason to claim that media with that licence is not free to reuse. This nomination is overly pessimistic, well beyond "significant doubt". No evidence has been put forward showing that NC government at any time has ever suggested that "property of the people" is not equivalent to "public domain", in fact as the State Library is an agent of the NC government, the opposite is true. --Fæ (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- As I said in the nomination; there exists significant doubt as to the status which can only be cleared up by an COM:OTRS ticket from an officer within the North Carolina government, I notice that you have e-mailed the governor and if clarification is made then all is well and we can keep the template; however if there is no reply or the reply is not sufficient for our needs the template needs to be deleted. LGA talkedits 08:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep for now: This template was just created, and it's evident from the links in the template — and even more so from the link at the top of Template talk:PD-NCGov — that the agency in charge of North Carolina's own state archives believes that North Carolina state works, in general, "are considered to be in the public domain" unless otherwise specified. We shouldn't apply the template to things that have copyrighted elements, of course; but it strongly appears that a state agency is stating explicitly that there is a default principle of public domain for state works. You basically have the State of North Carolina stating that the State of North Carolina's works are, generally, in the public domain. If it turns out there is a reason to believe this part of the North Carolina government is wrong about itself in general (not just in mistagging specific items), then I could understand how this template would be invalid and should come up for deletion again. --Closeapple (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Conditional Keep. The situation seems similar to the ambiguity that existed in California before County of Santa Clara v. CFAC and in Florida before Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner. Both states had legal wording that was vaguely similar to this and in both cases the courts decided that this meant most works by the state government were public domain. North Carolina has a completely different set of laws, however, so it's not possible to assume that the same holds true in this case. In the absence of a court decision, the copyright status is indeterminable, but since there is at least a plausible chance that the works would be considered public domain, I don't think there's a pressing reason to delete the template right now. It does, however, need a prominent caveat stating that the copyright status of these files is not 100% certain. Kaldari (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Kaldari: I've added a stronger warning (edit). Sven Manguard Wha? 03:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment While folk's attention is on this, I have not received a reply from the NC Governor to my request for clarification (User:Fæ/email/NCGov). As it has been over a week, it may well be that I never get one. As someone who is not a citizen in NC, and as they ask for a local contact phone number when you use the online request system, it may well have been de-prioritized. Could a U.S. citizen look into following up on our behalf please? --Fæ (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
On hold strong indications that licence can be applicable for some work, though its use will need to be watched. Keep open in the hope that Fæ may receive correspondence that clarifies the situation from the NC government. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Now tweeted here. Please retweet! This can often get the attention of politicians more quickly than email.
--Fæ (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Now tweeted here. Please retweet! This can often get the attention of politicians more quickly than email.
Delete This is simply a Freedom of Information act -- most states (maybe all) have one. Citizens can get copies of public records and information upon paying a reasonable charge. I can buy a book by paying for it but that does not mean that I own a license to its copyright. Similarly, there is nothing here that says anything about derivative works, commercial use, or sub-licensing. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- There is no equivalence here to a copyright book, that is an unhelpful parody of the statute. The published statute does not limit itself to public access. The statute clearly states that creative works of NC Government are the property of the people. This DR boils down to whether intellectual property defined as being fully owned by "the people" means the same thing as being "public domain". The Government agent, the North Carolina State Library, states that it does mean the same thing and are busy publishing the same material as public domain on this basis; they do not do the same with all the copyrighted books in the library, because those are not public domain. --Fæ (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- There is no equivalence here to a copyright book, that is an unhelpful parody of the statute. The published statute does not limit itself to public access. The statute clearly states that creative works of NC Government are the property of the people. This DR boils down to whether intellectual property defined as being fully owned by "the people" means the same thing as being "public domain". The Government agent, the North Carolina State Library, states that it does mean the same thing and are busy publishing the same material as public domain on this basis; they do not do the same with all the copyrighted books in the library, because those are not public domain.
Deleted: This is, as I said above, a simple Freedom of Information law. It does say anything about copyright, merely that people may obtain copies of public records and public information ... "unless otherwise provided by law". It says nothing of reuse, commercial use, or derivative works. There are similar laws on the books in most, perhaps all, states, but we do not recognize any of them as speaking to copyright, only to the ability to obtain a copy. Although Fæ called my comparison to buying a book "a parody", in fact it is an exact parallel -- the law provides that I may buy a copy of a public record. When I buy a copy of a book, I do not buy the copyright and the same is true of the copies of public records here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)