In his response to my post, Chris Garmire suggested that the correspondent who indicated that "recorded public records or public records in the US have no copyrights" was correct, and that I was wrong to refute this. I hate to argue with an IP lawyer (especially since I am not one!), but this is an important issue about which there seems to be some confusion, and so I would like to carry the discussion a bit further. If I am wrong, I want to be corrected, especially since, as Chris suggested, copyright law is too complicated for any one mere mortal to comprehend. Here is my understanding of the matter: Both Chris and Charlotte Coats implied that I was thinking about preemption (the doctrine that Federal copyright law trumps state copyright law), but that is not the case. Under federal copyright law, any original expression is copyrighted as soon as it is fixed in a tangible form. It doesn't matter if the author is JD Salinger or the State of Iowa; the work receives federal (not state) copyright protection. There are a few exceptions to this general rule. Section 105 of the Copyright Act specifies that works of the US Federal government cannot be copyrighted (but says nothing about state or local copyrights). Most court cases of which I am aware say that court decisions and briefs submitted to the court cannot be copyrighted. Statutes, ordinances, and other laws also cannot be copyrighted - even if they incorporate work that initially was copyrighted (see Veeck v. South. Bldg. Code Cong. Intl.). The distinction is best summarized in Stephen Fishman's excellent book "The Public Domain." Fishman writes: "The rule that the U.S. Government works are in the public domain does not apply to works by state and local government employees; those works may be protected by copyright. For example, a state tax pamphlet or booklet on air pollution or water conservation published by a city or country may be protected." Fishman adds that the trend seems to be for state governments increasingly to claim copyright protection as a way to earn extra income. So I would maintain again that non-federal public records in the US are quite likely to be protected by copyright - unless they are purely factual, part of a court proceedings, or part of the law. Chris and I are in agreement that the discussion on the list is purely informational, and not legal advice. Peter Hirtle A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List sponsored by the Society of American Archivists, www.archivists.org. For the terms of participation, please refer to http://www.archivists.org/listservs/arch_listserv_terms.asp. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to [log in to unmask] In body of message: SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname *or*: UNSUB ARCHIVES To post a message, send e-mail to [log in to unmask] Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html Problems? Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>