Straight-up do-my-job-for-me question

[iralith]

. . . or rather, this is a do-the-job-I-have-been-assigned-that-comes-perilously-close-to-calling-for-specialized-expertise-I-do-not-have-and-anyway-who-the-hell-does question. I strongly doubt anybody reading this has the requisite understanding of copyright law, the GFDL, and works by the federal government-but, uh, read on if you're prepared to

Comments

[hilariarex]

I followed the link to the GDFL rules and I found myself unable to understand the actual context of what you are talking about enough to form a tolerably informed opinion.

The picture in question is licensed under GDFL to anyone as long as they follow the rules, is that correct? Is the govt agency unable to follow those rules in publication? Or do the govt rules supercede the GDFL? I don't actually know what copyright rules specifically apply to the fed govt but now I'm going to go look it up.

But, long story short, I'd have to know slightly more about the specific licenses/legalities each is operating under to actually try to answer your question.

[hilariarex]

Try this:
http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#511

http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#30

And this page overall.

And this should not be construed as legal representation or advice.

[iralith]

Oh, I gotcha, I gotcha.

Actually, looking at those and re-looking at some Wikipedia stuff on copyright and government works, I think that the stuff my company produces doesn't qualify as government works. (Because we're contractors.) I mean, in practice it's all complicated-we contractors work on a document, the government-employee client works on it-but it's probably in the "not a work of the U.S. government" category. Blurmghmble.

[iralith]

Or not. I just had a guy at the GPO tell me otherwise, but I'm not sure how what he said squares against what I've read about contractors' works. I guess . . . it's that . . . argh, that (a) a federal-agency-published work created by a contractor is not in the public domain but (b) the copyright's held by the agency? That makes a sort of twisted sense. Dear God am I glad that knowing the answer to that question isn't the problem before me.

Anyway, thanks for all the help.

[salda007]

What about doing an end-run around the GDFL issue and going direct to the photographer for explicit permission to use the photo? Would that work/be possible?

[iralith]

Well, I think once you release something under the GFDL, you've released it under the GFDL-like, you don't have the normal rights to it anymore.

[benlehman]

Authors always have a right to license their work, as long as they haven't signed an exclusive license (and even then the issue is breach of contract rather than contravening any laws.) The GFDL is not an exclusive license.

yrs--
--Ben

[iralith]

Oh durr, I see. When you put it that way it makes perfect sense.

[priscillapuck]

OK, I haven't been on LJ for a long while and I have apparently forgotten how to read from left to right so I read your subject header as "do-me-for-my-job" and was like, Rrow, hey now!