Copyright and plagiarism, yet again.

All,

Some years ago I did some writing for the municipal government I worked for. (past tense) It was and is a project that I continue to have interest in and would like to publish.

Just so no one is unclear; the material was created while I was working for that municipal government and the copyright is therefore held by them. Just today I started to try to obtain a copy. Here in Indiana you can file for a copy of public information and I don’t see why I would get denied.

Now comes the tricky part, Is it possible to publish the material under my own name? If it would be possible for the City to assign the copyright to me, then yes. If for what ever reason the City is unable or unwilling to do that, then I think no.

Given the nature of the material, I think that it’s unlikely that I could re-write the material in a significantly different way.

The rest of this is extraneous to the copyright question and is back ground for why I would like to publish:

For any one who is interested, I worked in the Building Department as The Plumbing Inspector. Indiana requires that people who engage in the plumbing trade for monetary compensation be licensed. The Cities Plumbing Ordnance requires that if you are doing Plumbing you need a permit. Doing Plumbing being defined as adding to or removing from the plumbing pipes that are currently installed. In the ordinance there is a provision for home owners who live in their home to obtain a plumbing permit. The requirement was they would be able to pass a test. Well there wasn’t one nor was there any useful guides. Sure we followed the Indiana Plumbing Code but even experienced plumbers sometimes don’t know it, let alone understand it. (Usually the last time they read the Plumbing Code was during their apprenticeship!)

There is no reasonable expectation that a Home owner would understand code unless they have had an opportunity to study it, and it usually takes someone who does understand code to explain the way code is formatted and then to explain what specific section means.

So what I did was to get permission from the Building Commissioner (My nominal boss) to create a sort of plumbing reference, I tried to render code speak into more understandable terms. This is what I would like to publish, most plumbing books that are aimed at homeowners don’t touch on code compliance issues in any great depth and I think there would be a market for a book that bridged the gape between plumbing code and people who just want to add some fixture and have no real desire to become professionals.

Feeble jokes made about Building Inspector’s, Plumbing Inspectors are a subset. Ask an Inspector a code question and the answer usually starts; It just depends, (on what you want to do). Get 10 Building Inspectors in a room and ask them what the code says about some particular issue and you will get at least 11 (and usually more) answers.

Oh, one more thing: Here in Indiana we have an appeal process. A builder that gets cited for some code violation can appeal to the State Fire and Building Safety Commission for a ruling. I had two such appeals during my tenure, one was found in favor of the builder, in the other the builder was allowed to change his appeal while he was before the Commission. He was not able to do what I had cited him for, but was allowed to utilize a different method to gain code compliance.

Lastly, I am aware that many of you feel that you have been ill treated by a Building Inspector. I can’t do anything about that and would not want to. I didn’t see what the Inspector saw and don’t have any knowledge of what your Building Inspector was basing xis* judgement upon. I can not make any kind of reasonably informed opinion about your particular issues.

If you need to express your frustrations, please do so elsewhere.

Thank you to those who spent the time to read all of this and especially to any who choose to respond to the question about copyright.

*xis is a neutral personal pronoun.

The material may not be copyrighted at all. Federal government publications are not copyrightable. State (and therefore by extension city) government materials are not precluded from copyright, but some states may not copyright their material.

Otherwise you’d just have to ask – but getting a yes out of a bureaucracy can be hard.

I would be very surprised if any government document were copyrighted. You could even charge for it. Many people have republished government reports (Watergate, the Warren Commission, the pornography commission) and charged money for something that people could have gotten free if they knew where to ask.

City code specifically should be available for anyone to reprint. I’m sure lots of people have done commentary on laws. Tax lawyers do it all the time.

I don’t see any issues here at all, unless Indiana has some special, unique prohibition. Disclaimer: I’ve put in a lot of time and study on copyright but IANAL.

It’s not a good idea to reason by analogy on government copyrights. Federal government publications cannot be copyrighted because of a specific exemption in the copyright statute. But state and local governments can, and do, hold copyright in works they publish.

As to the original question: yes, chances are that copyright is held by the municipality you did the work for. Would they ever try to enforce their rights? Since it’s unlikely they would have registered a copyright in the material, could they ever ask for—much less prove—any damages significant enough to bother with?

Though I cannot offer you specific legal advice, I’d probably be inclined to ask the city for permission, if you have a good relationship with them and don’t think they’ll decide the question must go to their attorney for complex analysis. If you’re somewhat distant from the current regime, you can also just do a rewrite of the wording here and there, make the thoughts part of a larger work, and hope for the best.

Taking a summary of plumbing code and re-distilling it down into an understandable format and advice for a homeowners ia a great idea. Of course you should also be looking into doing this for the electrical code and building code as well. Maybe a book with three sections…

I don’t know much about US copyright laws, but it seems to me the copyright issue would be doing a verbatim copy of what you’ve already done, which it doesn’t sound like you necessarily need to do. Making your existing document even more user friendly should be possible. As a check, I’d suggest giving it to a friend who knows absolutely nothing about the plumbing code and see if they can understand your first version. If they don’t get it 100%, you can simplify more.

My other suggestion would be that even if it is copy-righted, spend some time and re-write some of what you previously did in the homeowner friendly format and submit the original and new versions to a copyright lawyer and get an opinion. For a few hours of your time and a couple hundred dollars you’ll put the idea to fruition or rest.

BTW - even if this doesn’t go forward in Indiana, are there other jurisdictions / states where you may be able to do this as well like New York, Chicago etc. ?

Asking for copyright of material owned by government may reasonably be too intimidating for them to consider and establish a precedent on. A less risk-filled request would be to ask for them to license [licence - never know which] your use of specific information for a specific purpose. It is more likely to be okayed because you would be asking for permission to use parts XY and Z of Document A, in format DEF. You will use it for this purpose which, as you’ve explained, is a public good. Doing so you may make some modest money to cover your labour and costs, but perhaps it will also reduce the number of dumb questions, false starts and general time-wasting of scarce public resources they get that should be spent on priority work.

As a sign of good faith perhaps offer to show the material in draft form for an okay by a reasonably qualified staff subject specialist [always offer to a manager with relevant subject background, and never their legal people], to show that you aren’t taking liberties. And make sure you say you will give due credit to the jurisdiction and the agency. The fact that you were the original author is only relevant in showing that you are a subject matter expert and shouldn’t be creating more problems by offering dumb advice.

Good luck with it. I might wait for the film adaptation.

I am a great believer in the ‘don’t ask’ principle. If it were me, I would revise the material; there is nothing that cannot be improved after revisiting. You wrote it some time ago so there may need to be changes anyway. Consider what will happen if the municipal government object… They cannot sue for damages as there are none; no loss to them as they will give it away FOC.

I think that adding a gas, electrical and building section would be a great idea.

Generally speaking, texts produced by the government cannot be protected by copyright law. However sometimes the government adopts or incorporates by reference texts into the language of statutes or regulations whose copyright interests are held by private parties. Then you might have a problem.

Check out public.resource.org for more information on this.

I’ve said this before, but I think it’s worth repeating—

The OP is “copyright and plagiarism”

Copyright infringement and plagiarism are two separate concepts. They do have in common the idea of illegitimate copying of something, but you should be careful not to muddle them up.

Plagiarism isn’t defined by the law and it can actually be much broader than copyright infringement.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19310287&postcount=10—

IANAL, but I don’t think violation of copyright is illegal per se. The copyright holder could sue you for monetary damages they have suffered, but what could they be if the city has chosen not to publish it? Why haven’t they published it, incidentally? It sounds like a great idea.

This kind of thing reminds of how the old Soviet Union used to copyright samizdat publications to try to prevent them from being published elsewhere. Using copyright laws to suppress rather than make money from things they didn’t like. I don’t think it worked (in the west at least) for the reasons above.

Looking in Wiktionary I just learned that plagiarism, the plague, and plagal modes all have a different etymology.

We all should have done our homework.

Should Copyright Apply to Your Building Code?

IOW, the cities aren’t claiming copyright on codes; the private groups who sell the codes for big bucks want controls over them. That’s a very different situation.

That hearing took place in 2014, but laid out the major points on both sides. This year a district court finally weighed in and the privates groups won.

Federal Court Basically Says It’s Okay To Copyright Parts Of Our Laws

The next step is an appeals court so it’s not settled law.

However, it light of this ruling the obvious advice to the OP is to check with your particular city to see what the situation is. Do not go ahead on your own. The city wouldn’t care, but these private groups will and undoubtedly have lawyers’ interns constantly searching for violations to pounce on.

Nitpick - that is meaningless. It detracts from what you wrote. [/nitpick]

No, no, no, no, wrong.

Copyright infringement absolutely is illegal, and a copyright holder does not have to prove actual damages (provided he or she registers, etc.)

The Copyright Act makes provision for statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each work infringed.

Or read my post No. 8 :wink:

I provided a cite. :stuck_out_tongue:

That’s simply not true, as I noted above. There’s a specific provision in the US copyright statute for the federal government. Works published by states and municipalities have copyright protection.

Simple, just take it and slightly rewrite it. No plagiarism, you are the author.

Generally speaking, texts produced by the government are not be protected by copyright law. Only a few very specialized types of product have protection. Harvard provides a state by state guide to copyrighted works. You can go through the states and see how limited that is. Building codes are an exception for some municipalities, but again an exception is not the majority.

How could that work in this case? The problem with building code, according to these lawsuits, is that access to it is limited. You need to see the code in order to understand an interpretation of it. There would be no way of knowing whether a rewrite caught the particular language unless the original code was there to refer to. Law is defined by exact language and wording. Sometimes even commas. If anything ever needed the original language, this is it.

“I tried to render code speak into more understandable terms. This is what I would like to publish, most plumbing books that are aimed at homeowners don’t touch on code compliance issues in any great depth and I think there would be a market for a book that bridged the gape between plumbing code and people who just want to add some fixture and have no real desire to become professionals.”

Just change the more understandable terms.