User talk:Elvey/Non-free mugshot

Sources:

Forum discussions

Exact authorization

The Compendium of Copyright Office Practices (Compendium II) section 206.01 states, "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments." and 206.03 clarifies "Works (other than edicts of government) prepared by officers or employees of any government (except the U.S. Government) including State, local, or foreign governments, are subject to registration if they are otherwise copyrightable."

This doesn't seem to square with the idea that mugshots are PD. Look at the Office's response again: "public ordinances, court decisions and similar . . . public records". Is a mugshot "similar" to a public ordinance or court decision? It seems very different to me.

I've e-mailed them asking for clarification. Hopefully they'll get back to me. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was speedy. Here's my question, exact wording:

Someone I know has alleged that when consulting the Copyright Office, they were informed that "As a general matter, state and local governments may claim copyright in their works. However, public ordinances, court decisions and similar official legal documents and public records of the state and local governments are generally not considered copyrightable for reasons of public policy."

I would like to ask for clarification. Is this statement correct precisely as worded? What statute, regulation, or court decision does it refer to? I'm asking in behalf (unofficially) of the website Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/), some of whose users have concluded largely on the basis of this statement that booking photos/mug shots are in the public domain.

Thank you for your time.

Here's their response, exact wording:

The copyright statute does not address this issue. Section 206.01 of the Compendium II of Copyright Office Practices states as follows:

206.01 Edicts of government.
Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments.

Please see http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightCompendium/chapter_0200.asp.

There may well have been litigation that specifically addressed this issue. However, we do not provide legal research services. You may wish to research the caselaw in order to determine the disposition of the courts on the specific issue of whether mug shots/booking photos are considered copyrightable subject matter.
rg

**************IMPORTANT NOTE**************
As of July 1, 2006, most filing fees will be $45 per application.
For other fees, please see:
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/fees2006.html

**********************************
Copyright Office
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave SE
Washington DC 20559
(202) 707-3000
www.copyright.gov

**********************************

So now we have to consider: do mugshots qualify as "Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents"? Clearly not. I think these images will need to be reclassified as unfree. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 17:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one's responded, I've put a notice on the tag saying it's disputed. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 16:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forum discussions

Related links

Exact authorization