# Copyright and plagiarism, yet again. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 3, 2017, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840 "2017-10-03T02:01:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mr\_Downtown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Mr\_Downtown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Downtown)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840/21 "2017-10-05T04:17:37Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Generally speaking, texts produced by the government are not be protected by copyright law. Only a few very specialized types of product have protection. I believe you have it backwards. As you’ll see if you look at specific states in that Harvard guide, with the exception of a few things that might be specifically mentioned in one state statute or another, states, and especially counties and municipalities, have a copyright interest in **everything** they publish. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840/22 "2017-10-05T04:21:56Z")
> [@Mr\_Downtown](#): > > I believe you have it backwards. As you’ll see if you look at specific states in that Harvard guide, with the exception of a few things that might be specifically mentioned in one state statute or another, states, and especially counties and municipalities, have a copyright interest in **everything** they publish. Nope. wiki: \*Federal law expressly denies U.S. copyright protection to two types of government works: works of the U.S. federal government itself, and all edicts of any government regardless of level or whether or not foreign.[1] \* > **[Edict of government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_government)** > > Edict of government is a technical term associated with the United States Copyright Office's guidelines and practices that comprehensively includes laws (in a wide sense of that term), which advises that such submissions will neither be accepted nor processed for copyright registration. It is based on the principle of public policy that citizens must have unrestrained access to the laws that govern them. Similar provisions occur in most, but not all, systems of copyright law; the main exceptions ... The codes are not protected by copyright, they are edicts. Only if they contained previously copyrighted material could copyright come in. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840/23 "2017-10-05T04:23:06Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840/24 "2017-10-05T13:23:21Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Simple, just take it and slightly rewrite it. No plagiarism, you are the author. I think this is the best solution here. Since this isn’t the actual code, the specific words don’t matter, so just make something different enough that you can plausibly claim it was completely re-written from scratch. No copyright issue if the words are different. (And of course, realistically, the chances of the town actually pursuing any copyright action against you are tiny, anyway) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840/25 "2017-10-05T14:32:03Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > 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. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Nope. > wiki: > \*Federal law expressly denies U.S. copyright protection to two types of government works: works of the U.S. federal government itself, and all edicts of any government regardless of level or whether or not foreign.[1] \* > [Edict of government - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_government) > > The codes are not protected by copyright, they are edicts. > > Only if they contained previously copyrighted material could copyright come in. A code promulgated independently by a state or its subdivision is an edict. A code promulgated by a private party which is adopted by a government agency _by reference_ is not (though this is subject to some dispute). But in any event, _commentary_ on copyrighted material is not an edict, and the town was free to seek copyright in the OP’s writing. > [@Acsenray](#): > > 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. I think the poster you were responding to was using the term illegal in the narrower (though still technically incorrect) lay sense (i.e. criminal, versus in contravention of _any_ law). ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840/26 "2017-10-05T16:56:55Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > A code promulgated independently by a state or its subdivision is an edict. A code promulgated by a private party which is adopted by a government agency _by reference_ is not (though this is subject to some dispute). > > But in any event, _commentary_ on copyrighted material is not an edict, and the town was free to seek copyright in the OP’s writing. > > I think the poster you were responding to was using the term illegal in the narrower (though still technically incorrect) lay sense (i.e. criminal, versus in contravention of _any_ law). That is correct. The Ops commentary could be Copyrighted. Which means he’d only have to change it around a bit. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840/27 "2017-10-05T18:59:12Z")
> [@Mr\_Downtown](#): > > I believe you have it backwards. As you’ll see if you look at specific states in that Harvard guide, with the exception of a few things that might be specifically mentioned in one state statute or another, states, and especially counties and municipalities, have a copyright interest in **everything** they publish. You need to show me in so many words where this is said. All I see are the few **exceptions** that are copyrightable. > [@DrDeth](#): > > That is correct. The Ops commentary could be Copyrighted. Which means he’d only have to change it around a bit. Yes, all commentary is copyrightable. For this particular case, however, I feel that a commentary that does not contain any of the original language would be an unsellable product. It would be nice if the OP returned and, um, commented on what’s being said here. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2017, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840/28 "2017-10-05T21:59:01Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I think the poster you were responding to was using the term illegal in the narrower (though still technically incorrect) lay sense (i.e. criminal, versus in contravention of _any_ law). In responding to this kind of question, it doesn’t make any sense to me to make a statement like that using the narrower definition. (And, of course, civil copyright infringement can become criminal infringement if it’s big enough.) However, that wasn’t the point of my “no no no no wrong.” It was his claim that a copyright holder has to prove actual damages. If a work is properly registered, etc., a copyright holder absolutely does not have to prove actual damages. Actual damages are merely one option that a copyright holder can ask for and the vast majority are not going to lean very heavily on that. ---
**Author:** ![zuer-coli](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ba9def/32.png) [@zuer-coli](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zuer-coli)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840/29 "2017-10-06T07:14:07Z")
Folks at the Dope, Thank you for all the replies, well all but one. I got caught up in a consulting project and that has absorbed much of my time. Shortly after the project is complete I will reread all the posts and try to formulate a compressive reply. Again, thanks for all the replies with the exception of one! Zuer-coli ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840/30 "2017-10-06T14:22:30Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > However, that wasn’t the point of my “no no no no wrong.” It was his claim that a copyright holder has to prove actual damages. If a work is properly registered, etc., a copyright holder absolutely does not have to prove actual damages. Actual damages are merely one option that a copyright holder can ask for and the vast majority are not going to lean very heavily on that. Fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2017, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840/31 "2017-10-07T16:03:55Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > That is correct. The Ops commentary could be Copyrighted. Which means he’d only have to change it around a bit. Exactly. Copyright covers the expression, not the idea or concept. Now would be a good time to go through each of the concepts you covered previously, and rewrite and rearrange the material so it is obviously not the exact stuff you produced for the city. While you’re at it, scour the plumbing advice on assorted websites to see what sort of questions plumbing newbies ask, and incorporate your answers to their questions into discussions of the plumbing codes… Thus adding more original material. For example, if you wrote a story about a boy wizard, who didn’t know he was a wizard, and went on to Warthoog School for Magicians and so on - depending on how close it hews to Potter, it may be a copyright violation. But also for example the studio owning Star Wars sued when the original Battlestar Galactica came out saying “little ships from mother ship dogfighting in outer space? Bad guys wearing body armour, breathing loudly? That’s stolen from our story!” The courts told them to take a hike. Similarly, there’s only so many ways to “explain plumbing code in simple English” so I would assume as long as the words and paragraph structure are sufficiently different, you would be OK. Copyright IIRC is generally a civil matter. It has been made a criminal matter in certain cases (typically, wholesale piracy of lucrative properties like movies). ---
**Author:** ![Lasciel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e79b87/32.png) [@Lasciel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lasciel)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2017, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840/32 "2017-10-07T17:13:18Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Nitpick - that is meaningless. It detracts from what you wrote. [/nitpick] Your nitpick is factually and some would argue morally wrong. Xir (and etc) are correctly and currently used in situations where the sex of a person is unknown or unknowable (your hypothetical building supervisor) and the speaker does not wish to perpetuate sexist assumptions about which sex are stereotypically seen as the correct or default holder of that position. As it is a fairly new and unusual usage in colloquial non-college settings, the OP also rightly included a short explanation. If you are going to scold someone for actively choosing to redact unnecessary information (the utterly unimportant sex identity of the building inspector) then it would be more correct to do so in the sense of offering alternative methods to more elegantly accomplish the goal. Unless you feel it is necessary in some way to continue to assume that building inspectors are all of one particular sex identity and that people should care what that is? HOWEVER as a nitpick to the nitpick, I find that while English is flexible, common usage prefers to adapt existing words rather than to create new, especially for items of speech as basic as pronouns. Therefore the singular usage of ‘they’ is seeing a lot more use in that type of situation, and is rapidly becoming accepted use even in professional contexts. It also tends to pass without notice, which may not fit the OP’s goals, but is certainly useful in some situations, arguably including this one, as it would likely have prevented a hijack. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2017, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840/33 "2017-10-07T18:37:32Z")
> [@Lasciel](#): > > Your nitpick is factually and some would argue morally wrong. > > Xir (and etc) are correctly and currently used in situations where the sex of a person is unknown or unknowable (your hypothetical building supervisor) and the speaker does not wish to perpetuate sexist assumptions about which sex are stereotypically seen as the correct or default holder of that position. > > As it is a fairly new and unusual usage in colloquial non-college settings, the OP also rightly included a short explanation. > > If you are going to scold someone for actively choosing to redact unnecessary information (the utterly unimportant sex identity of the building inspector) then it would be more correct to do so in the sense of offering alternative methods to more elegantly accomplish the goal. > > Unless you feel it is necessary in some way to continue to assume that building inspectors are all of one particular sex identity and that people should care what that is? > > HOWEVER as a nitpick to the nitpick, I find that while English is flexible, common usage prefers to adapt existing words rather than to create new, especially for items of speech as basic as pronouns. Therefore the singular usage of ‘they’ is seeing a lot more use in that type of situation, and is rapidly becoming accepted use even in professional contexts. > > It also tends to pass without notice, which may not fit the OP’s goals, but is certainly useful in some situations, arguably including this one, as it would likely have prevented a hijack. Huh? Never ever ever heard of it before. Is this another one of those things like “wimen” instead of “women”? English has a long and time-honored traditional way of dealing with ambiguous gender (in grammar, that is). Use the plural. I.e. “The building inspector can fall back on their own interpretation of the code…” or “The building inspector will issue a stop-work order when they see something that does not meet code.” (\*“Why are you playing the pronoun game… ? ‘ **They** are from my home town.’ Doesn’t this tube of wonderful have a name?” \* -Chasing Amy) IMHO - changes to the English language succeed (i.e. Ms.) only when they fill a need for a word that does not already have a proper solution. (Another good example is “santorum”). ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2017, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840/34 "2017-10-08T00:48:13Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > English has a long and time-honored traditional way of dealing with ambiguous gender (in grammar, that is). Use the plural. I.e. “The building inspector can fall back on their own interpretation of the code…” or “The building inspector will issue a stop-work order when they see something that does not meet code.” > > (\*“Why are you playing the pronoun game… ? ‘ **They** are from my home town.’ Doesn’t this tube of wonderful have a name?” \* -Chasing Amy) > > IMHO - changes to the English language succeed (i.e. Ms.) only when they fill a need for a word that does not already have a proper solution. (Another good example is “santorum”). Language changes based on fashion. It’s futile to predict what changes will stick for how long. The only certainty is that eventually things will change. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Downtown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Mr\_Downtown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Downtown)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2017, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840/35 "2017-10-08T03:51:59Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > You need to show me in so many words where this is said. 17 U.S. Code § 102 - Subject matter of copyright: In general (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works. * * * 17 U.S. Code § 105 - Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works 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. There is no similar section for works of state or local governments. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Downtown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Mr\_Downtown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Downtown)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2017, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840/36 "2017-10-08T04:04:26Z")
Want to hear it from someone other than me? [https://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#313](https://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#313) That Harvard site is primarily concerned with openness of **public records,** not ordinary publications put out by state and local governments. Many state highway maps, for instance (remember those?), bear copyright notices. So do many municipal websites. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2017, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840/37 "2017-10-08T05:35:25Z")
> [@Mr\_Downtown](#): > > 17 U.S. Code § 102 - Subject matter of copyright: In general > > (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: > (1) literary works; > (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; > (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; > (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; > (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; > (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; > (7) sound recordings; and > (8) architectural works. > > * * * > > 17 U.S. Code § 105 - Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works > 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. > > There is no similar section for works of state or local governments. Federal law expressly denies U.S. copyright protection to two types of government works: works of the U.S. federal government itself, and all edicts of any government regardless of level or whether or not foreign.[1] > **[Edict of government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_government)** > > Edict of government is a technical term associated with the United States Copyright Office's guidelines and practices that comprehensively includes laws (in a wide sense of that term), which advises that such submissions will neither be accepted nor processed for copyright registration. It is based on the principle of public policy that citizens must have unrestrained access to the laws that govern them. Similar provisions occur in most, but not all, systems of copyright law; the main exceptions ... ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2017, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840/38 "2017-10-08T15:03:34Z")
> [@Mr\_Downtown](#): > > Want to hear it from someone other than me? [https://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#313](https://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#313) > > That Harvard site is primarily concerned with openness of **public records,** not ordinary publications put out by state and local governments. Many state highway maps, for instance (remember those?), bear copyright notices. So do many municipal websites. Again, you are reading this backward. > [@](#): > > ``` > 3.1.3 Does 17 USC §10560 apply to works of State and Local Governments? > > ``` > > No, it applies only to federal government works. State and local governments may and often do claim copyright in their publications. It is their prerogative to set policies that may allow, require, restrict or prohibit claim of copyright on some or all works produced by their government units. State and local government \*may \*claim copyright in their publications. In fact, they seldom do. I say seldom because they put out thousands of publications every year, only a few specialized examples being copyrighted. And that is separate from laws, zillions of which are passed, amended, or updated every year. And I flatly do not believe that \*most \*municipal websites bear copyright notices. Some somewhere might do so, but again those are a small number of exceptions. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Downtown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Mr\_Downtown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Downtown)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2017, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840/39 "2017-10-09T02:10:12Z")
Since 1976, there’s been no need to do any sort of registration in the US. The author of a work has a copyright in it as soon as it is fixed in a medium. Registration can help a copyright owner recover damages, but isn’t necessary to claim infringement and get an injunction. Every municipal website or village newsletter is protected by copyright, whether it carries any notice or not. An _edict_ is a statute, ordinance, or regulation. An explanation of the best way to comply with a plumbing code is not an edict, it is a publication. One in which the author or publisher (if a work-for-hire) has an enforceable copyright interest. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2017, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840/40 "2017-10-09T16:21:50Z")
> [@Mr\_Downtown](#): > > Since 1976, there’s been no need to do any sort of registration in the US. The author of a work has a copyright in it as soon as it is fixed in a medium. Registration can help a copyright owner recover damages, but isn’t necessary to claim infringement and get an injunction. Every municipal website or village newsletter is protected by copyright, whether it carries any notice or not. This is a variant of the same assertion you keep making. It’s true that a notice of copyright is not required. (And yet it was your assertion that “many municipal websites” have them.) However, that does not mean that everything lacking a notice is copyrighted. You first need to prove that states and municipalities by law copyright every publication. That is what we are arguing. You assert it but have not issued one ounce of proof. > [@](#): > > An _edict_ is a statute, ordinance, or regulation. An explanation of the best way to comply with a plumbing code is not an edict, it is a publication. One in which the author or publisher (if a work-for-hire) has an enforceable copyright interest. The question here is the status of the actual code, the \*edict \*itself, not any explanation of it. Everybody agrees that an explanation is copyrightable. Only you are extending copyright to all edicts, not just the exceptions listed on the site I gave. Please give your proof of your assertion before this goes round yet another circle. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-and-plagiarism-yet-again/797840.md?page=3)