Template talk:PD-CAGov

There has been some debate about the applicability of this same template over at the English-language Wikipedia. See w:Template talk:PD-CAGov and the related Templates for Deletion discussion at w:Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 13#Template:PD-CAGov. ^BlankVerse 17:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It was voided at the time, but there's new information: a new court ruling that "writings of public officials and agencies" available under California’s public records law (CPRA), are generally not subject to copyright." See Wikipedia:WP:PDOMG#News. So I'm resurrecting it.--Elvey (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Uses

California Driver Handbook - Audio version Maybe it belongs on WikiBooks? (To-Do)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/capatientadvocate/3501812438/ - even though it's tagged (incorrectly) all rights reserved. (DONE)

City, County, local, etc.

I intend to copy the text "or an employee of a local government agency (county, city, special district, etc.) that is located in California," which is already in the documentation, to the template itself. Any objections? In CA, all local governments are considered a creation of the State. --Elvey (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

DONE. Supported by the case cited here, which was about the County of Santa Clara's GIS data.

Well, except schools and community colleges (but not UofC) are largely exempt. Fixed.--Elvey (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Illegitimate Barrister 04:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Update to match version on Wikipedia?

Given the developments in case law that have occurred since this discussion page was started, and given that the equivalent template has been updated on Wikipedia to reflect this, I propose updating the template here on Commons to match, see diff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:PD-CAGov&oldid=530092322

It seems clear (to me) that the intent of the court and legislature is for all government works in California to be freely available (public domain), unless specifically provided for otherwise. This would apply not just directly to the state government itself, but also to works by counties and cities (which under state law are essentially extensions of the state government) and other agencies such as joint powers authorities, harbor districts, etc. empowered under state law. I'm going to go ahead and be bold and update this template. Darkest tree (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I tried, but I'm not very good at editing templates and I didn't want to break the template, so I didn't save any changes to it. Can anyone help? Darkest tree (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I got it done. Basically made it match the Wikipedia version linked above. Darkest tree (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Court ruling on City Council meeting videos

The United States District Court for the Central District of California has recently interpreted this statute, in the context of videos of city council meetings. The lawsuit, brought by the City of Inglewood, CA, for copyright infringement was dismissed. The case is City of Inglewood -v- Joseph Teixeira, et al. (August 20, 2015). – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Works created by or at public universities?

Does this template apply to works created by employees of public universities? My understanding is that public colleges have some kind of special status in California law. For example, according to this website, images such as Michael V. Drake.jpg are copyrighted by the University of California. Could someone who is more familiar with this area of law provide some clarification? --Tt(^talk/_contribs) 22:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

These templates should probably all be examined for details of when they do and don't apply. Putting it on the to-do list. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

 Support --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Should there be a PD-CACities template?

I've just now become aware of the changes to this template starting around this edit, after seeing this license on a file that was clearly not a "work of the State of California" (the emblem of a city fire department). In it's current state, the wording still states that the file is a "work of the State of California", which is misleading to people who might be interested in using the file. Would it perhaps be better to keep this template for actual works of the State of California, and create another template for works of cities in California, with a better explanation of the rationale (which may very well be contested by the city itself) under which they are being claimed to be PD? Conflating the two situations seems like a disservice to people considering use of the files. --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Such material is in the public domain for the same reason as state material, so an extra template just risks causing extra confusion. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• I believe it would prevent confusion. I would say there's a difference between material explicitly placed in the public domain by its creators vs. material presumed by someone on commons to be public domain, or at least possibly defensible in court as such, quite possibly against the opinions of its creators. It seems to me that anyone considering using this material should be made aware of the distinction, with a clear explanation of the presumptions involved, in the spirit of Creative Commons licenses. Telling them later that they should have read the fine print (and that they might maybe actually win in court) probably won't be very comforting. My two cents, for whatever its worth. --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• I agree that it would create confusion. A city is an entity of the state in much the same way as a state court, fire department, or tax bureau is an entity of the state. Creating a separate template would only serve to create the impression that there is something special or distinct about cities and their works, when there isn't.. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)