Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

State Government Information and the Copyright Conundrum


Published on

Resource list to accompany presentation at the 2012 Best Practices Exchange Conference. December 5, 2012. Annapolis, MD Track: Access and Sustainability 4

  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

State Government Information and the Copyright Conundrum

  1. 1. State Government Information and the Copyright Conundrum Best Practices Exchange, Dec. 5, 2012 Kris Kasianovitz, Resource List1Problem Statement: Because states can copyright their publications, this unduly restricts memory and knowledge institutions, i.e. libraries from providing access to, use, re-use, reformatting, re-distribution, and archiving of these materials. PresentationKasianovitz, Kris. (2012). State Government Information and the Copyright Conundrum.Best Practices Exchange Presentation. Trust Permission for Rights Holders Commons Public Domain tools Commons Licenses Search of ―state government documents‖ ―public domain‖ BibliographyAmerican Association of Law Libraries.―Digital Access to Legal Information Committee‖, n.d. on Intellectual Property Rights and the Emerging Information Infrastructure. Computer Science and Telecommunications Board. National Research Council.The digital dilemma  : intellectual property in the information age. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000.Dmitrieva, Irina Y. ―State Ownership of Copyrights in Primary Law Materials.‖ Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 23 (2001 2000): 81. id=96. 1 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit
  2. 2. Fortney, K. ―Ending Copyright Claims in State Primary Legal Materials: Toward an Open Source Legal System.‖ Law Libr. J. 102 (2010): 59–705.Ghosh, S. ―Copyright as Privatization: The Case of Model Codes.‖ Tul. L. Rev. 78 (2003): 653.———. ―Deprivatizing Copyright.‖ Case W. Res. L. Rev. 54 (2003): 387. bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/cwrlrv54&section=16.Howard, Jennifer. ―HathiTrust Case Highlights Authors’ Fears About Fate of Their Work Online.‖ The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 2, 2011, sec. Hot Type. Lawsuit/129241/?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en.―IFLA Statement on Legal Deposit‖, n.d. deposit.Kasianovitz, Kris. ―Why Care About Copyright?‖ DttP 36, no. 2 (Summer 2008): 12– 14.ère, Jules. ―Guidelines for Legal Deposit Legislation‖, n.d., M. J. “Copyrightability of Works of the Federal and State Governments Under the 1976 Act.” . Louis ULJ 29 (1984): 91. bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/stlulj29&section=14.―State-by-State Report on Authentication of Online Legal Resources‖, n.d. Legal-Resources.html.―State-by-State Report on Permanent Public Access to Electronic Government Information‖, n.d. Reports/2003/ppareport.html.Svengalis, Kendall. ―Chapter 2: A Brief History of Legal Publishing.‖ In Legal Information Buyer’s Guide & Reference Manual, 2010.
  3. 3. Case LawBanks v Manchester.128 U.S. 244, *9 S. Ct. 36, **32 L. Ed. 425, ***1888 U.S. LEXIS 2216Date Accessed: 2012/11/30.The court affirmed the denial of copyright protection because judicial opinions were publicproperty, free to all citizens, and could not be copyrighted.COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, --v.-- FIRSTAMERICAN REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, EXPERIANINFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., doing business as Experian, doing business as ExperianReal Estate Solutions, TRW REDI PROPERTY DATA, also known as Information Systems andServices, Inc., Defendants.261 F.3d 179, *2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 16706, **59 U.S.P.Q.2D(BNA) 1639Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28,322Date Accessed: 2012/11/30.PETER VEECK, doing business as Regional Web, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant-Appellant,versus SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE CONGRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,Defendant/Counter Claimant-Appellee.293 F.3d 791, *2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 10963, **63U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1225Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28,448COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTACLARA COUNTY, Respondent; CALIFORNIA FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION, RealParty in Interest. 170 Cal. App. 4th 1301, *89 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **2009 Cal. App. LEXIS148, ***37 Media L. Rep. 1331BUILDING OFFICIALS & CODE ADM., PLAINTIFF, APPELLEE, v. CODE TECHNOLOGY, INC.,DEFENDANT, APPELLANT. 170 Cal. App. 4th 1301, *89 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **2009 Cal.App. LEXIS 148, ***37 Media L. Rep. 1331