Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon/Law

	Oregon portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Copyright Proposal

(moved from User talk:Peteforsyth)

Two things came to mind:

I don't know off the top of my head if the state can force the local governments to comply. The local governments are charted/incorporated by state law, but then again states are part of the US and the US government cannot tell the states to not copyright their materials. So maybe one battle at a time.
Costs. The government likes to know how much this is going to cost. Now it propably won't cost money to implement, but they may lose revenue. So maybe some research into that aspects with the Dept. of Revenue to bolster the public good arguement.

Otherwise looks fine. Aboutmovies 20:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two excellent points. I'm happy to remove the request re: local governments (maybe leaving in a parenthetical suggestion somewhere.) Not sure the best way to identify revenue streams that rely on copyright retention, but I'll mull it over and ask around. Thanks! -Pete 22:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for improvement

It's a good start. Ideas:

Make it even clearer what is wrong and what the legislator should do to fix it
Replace

I am not an attorney, but it is my understanding that works of the Federal government already have this status.

with the specific CFR section which waives copyright. (It is my understanding too, having worked in the Forest Service, and heard it stated by USGS, USDA, NASA, and BLM personnel.)

Another point is that reserving copyright—and not publishing ORS online—might be seen as impeding distribution and dissemination of the law.

—EncMstr 20:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just some background, ORS *is* published online--I know because I helped format it for that use. The Legislative Counsel Committee retains copyright to certain aspects of it (not sure what those are), and the on-line edition is not considered certified or official, however, after the LC does all the work compiling and editing a new print edition of the ORS every two years (been there, done that) there is a competing company that produces their own version of the print edition and that is perfectly legal. Katr67 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys/gals(?)!

EncMstr, I think your first two points will be addressed by general editing. I expect to tinker with this for a while before sending it off. I'll look at the agencies you mention, but would also love it if you find any specifics. If it's OK, I'll ask you to look over a final draft before I send it. Your third point is a good one, are you suggesting it might be illegal for them to claim copyright? I wasn't thinking so much of ORS as of maps, photos, and documents…but I'm open to suggestion of where to focus. -Pete

Well, I was thinking it was stupid for them copyright anything: Didn't we already pay for the intellectual property? Should we have to pay again to obtain copies of them? —EncMstr 22:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two similar but distinct issues at play: (1) whether info is placed in its entirety on the web, and (2) whether or not the gummint claims copyright. Either may be true without the other. My guess is that no copyright is claimed on ORS - I see no notes that it is on the state web site. Having them place it in public view is important as well, but a slightly different issue. -Pete 22:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katr, thanks for the background. Do you know who that competing company is?

Finally, the two examples I chose are from my own work, but I'm open to replacing/supplementing them with other examples. Please let me know if any come to mind.

-Pete 22:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably find the CFR if you need me to, though AM might have better access to some handy law databases. I think its a good start too--I agree, be very clear what the problem is, and how you propose to solve it. Be passionate! They like that. Also, if you can get a legislator interested in this, this may be the very letter s/he will take to the drafter in the Legislative Counsel to show the drafter what is wanted. So be very clear and specific. Is there any existing Oregon law related to this matter? That might be good to mention. I'll offer my services as a copyeditor on the final copy if you would like. I did very similar work at the LC. I wonder if there are any legislators that would be particularly interested in this issue... I know the deadline for legislators to get bill draft proposals in to the LC is looming--they're trying to get a lot done in a shorter session this year so I don't know if this will make it this year. Katr67 00:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of something else. Why the heck should some legislator care about Wikipedia? Does s/he even know what it is? Does s/he think of it as a positive thing or a collection of poorly written nonsense? You might have to sell Wikipedia a bit, and expand your scope to include applications outside Wikipedia, with specific examples. What's in it for them? Giving someone the chance to be a champion of more open government, freedom of speech, etc. is a good angle. Katr67 04:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katr: Sorry, I don't know what CFR is. Thank you for the insight into legislative drafting process, and also for your willingness to copyedit. As to the "selling" bit - I'm pretty confident that I could persuade my rep and maybe senator of its value, largely along the lines you describe. Maybe one or two others. But ultimately, I don't think it would be successful unless I do a little more grassroots rabble rousing, and get a few others to send similar letters to their legislators, and maybe get a letter to the editor published or something. So ultimately, this legislative session might be a little over-ambitious for anything more than some foreshadowning of a future push? I definitely see the value of using non-wikipedia examples, and will keep my eye out for those. Thanks again for all the ideas - I had no idea you were so familiar with the legislature's inner workings! -Pete 05:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, CFR=Code of Federal Regulations. Good about your reps--there are a few hip ones about. I can think of a couple who might be interested. Re: Inner workings--yeah, too bad I prefer to write and edit nice tame topics like Podunk small towns, huh? :) Katr67 06:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: inner workings, you took the words outta my mouth :) Seriously though, I ain't about to knock the work you do here no way, nohow; public service comes in all shapes and sizes. Re: CFR, let's leave that aside for now. Either I'll stumble upon it, or we can track it down right before the final draft. -Pete 07:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, speaking of stumbling, how's this? I love these Internets! -Pete 07:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find! What's the correct citation format? 17 CFR 1.105? Odd that this is in the part with commodities and securities exchanges. Maybe an artifact of their codifying process? —EncMstr 16:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ORS

Katr67, remember the question about ORS 401.615? Wasn't that hard to resolve because it wasn't published? —EncMstr 22:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a gal, which isn't a secret, but I think being low-key about it keeps a lid on any discrimination I might experience. ORS is here. The competing company is Thomson West. I found an interesting comparison on the Oregon State Bar page. EncMstr, the law in question ended up not changing ORS and it wasn't written in a way to include it in the ORS chapter, so it resides in 1995 Oregon Laws (which is separate from ORS, for those of you playing along at home), which isn't online. Not because of copyright restrictions, but because of the limitations of getting documents online. The LC only has them online back to 1999, which is probably when they started doing it, and they might not have the previous ones in the proper format. It would probably take a a bunch of work to get them on there. Nice if they could do it, but I know those folks are a little swamped with work right now. :) Katr67 22:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@_@! I thought I was a bit confused before, but now I'm sure something has completely passed me by. ORS is distinct from Oregon Laws? Is there an example of "chapter & verse" reference to state law. Isn't ORS 401.615 a reference to ORS? Please save me, Ms. wizard..... —EncMstr 23:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, don't mind us as we take over your page, Pete. Reread the entire thread on my talk page, and maybe it will make more sense. In a nutshell, the bill you had asked me about did indeed modify ORS 401.615, but by the time both houses got done with it, it no longer modified any existing ORS chapters. Most existing state law is codified in the Oregon Revised Statutes. Each year, after the legislative session, all the laws passed that session are compiled in a volume called Oregon Laws. For some arcane reason I don't understand, any laws passed that don't modify existing ORS may or may not be included in ORS. Some are assigned chapter and section numbers as an editorial decision, others just hang out in Oregon Laws (along with various resolutions and memorials), perhaps with a note in ORS, perhaps not. Sometimes this is because they are temporary laws that include sunset provisions. Does that help? Katr67 23:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. ORS chapter 279 shows some examples of a citation of Oregon Laws. Do forgive the weird typo/text conversion artifacts--obviously I wasn't the one who checked over that section. :P Katr67 23:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. Here's another example of a note in ORS 480 that refers to OL. "Note: The amendments to 480.432 by section 34, chapter 758, Oregon Laws 2005, become operative July 1, 2006. See section 57, chapter 758, Oregon Laws 2005, as amended by section 57a, chapter 758, Oregon Laws 2005. The text that is operative until July 1, 2006, is set forth for the user’s convenience." Katr67 00:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really having a hard time following. Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense.^[1] Are you saying that they pass a bunch of laws (truly, a sausage-making operation), put them into a pile and someone else decides which are put into effect? —EncMstr 00:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ Pilot trainer Rod Machado

Naw, I love that you gals and guys are taking over this talk page! Among other things, it's refreshing to learn that I'm not the only person who gets confused by this stuff. I'll echo EncMstr's confusion, but let me sum up what I think Katr is saying: (1) Oregon Revised Statutes is re-published following every legislative session, with any modifications. (2) New laws passed by the legislature or initiative, if they do not modify an existing statute or the Constitution, do not always appear in the ORS. (3) Those become something called "Oregon Laws."

If all that is right, I think we need to find out: what's the difference between a "law" and a "statute" and ORS? I had thought they were all the same. I'll ask an attorney. -Pete 01:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close. The "pile of laws" that are passed all go into effect on various dates depending on how the bill is written. Not all of these laws are codified, but I'll get back to that. This pile of laws is Oregon Laws. For example, after the 2005 legislative session, all the bills (a collection of laws, resolutions and memorials) that were passed were published in the three-volume Oregon Laws 2005. Now, each bill may modify several sections of ORS, or create new laws, so each bill is broken down into sections and placed in the appropriate ORS chapter if it is to be codified. The newly codified sections go into a revised version of Oregon Revised Statutes, other sections are amended, and other stuff that has been repealed is removed. After a long, boring process, much of which is still done using hard copy and colored pencils, the 19-volume 2005 Oregon Revised Statutes is born. Both the ORS and OL are collections of laws, but ORS is also a collection of statutes, which are laws that have been codified. See also: Glossary of Legislative Terms, and How an Idea Becomes a Law. There's another handy explanation of the legislative process, but the site is down right now... Any clearer? Sorry you asked? Katr67 02:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see. There's no restriction how much—or how little—of the ORS will be affected by a bill. So new bills become The Law and they affect ORS as they become effective. Codification is important to be a statute, but I was fuzzy until reading the glossary:

Statute; A codified law. (NOTE: "Codify" means "to arrange laws systematically." A codified law is one that has been incorporated into that section of the ORS that it amends, modifies, or accompanies.)

Bill: a bucket of proposed laws

The Law: all the buckets of laws in effect

Codify: assign chapter and verse to a new law, and shuffle it into ORS; or erase or modify existing ORS verses

ORS: the final list of codified laws

Does that mean that The Law is a waiting room for items until codified, and it gets cleaned completely out every few years? So that would mean checking to see if something is "legal" means looking at ORS, but then also checking the latest Law collection to see if a pending change is waiting. Am I close? —EncMstr 02:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you've got it. Here's that other handy page: How An Idea Really Becomes A Law - What Only Jacques Cousteau Can Know "To understand how an idea becomes law, a person must witness the whole of the formal legislative process, not just the parts that make for the best political theater." —Former Legislative Counsel, Gregory A. Chaimov

If a change is pending, a note to that effect is placed in ORS as I cited above. Sometimes the OL section is placed in ORS as a note as in ORS 138: "(Temporary provisions relating to post-conviction motion for DNA testing are compiled as notes preceding ORS 138.005)" (scroll down past the TOC to see the provisions) Temporary provisions may be subsequently made permanent by further legislation. I'm a little fuzzy on the stuff that is never codified. It doesn't really get "cleaned out", but I think most of the time it just sits there until it sunsets. Are there still laws from 1973 hanging around that aren't codified? I don't think so, but if I bump into someone who knows I'll ask. Katr67 04:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked my top secret sources and it is unlikely that there are any old laws lying around in Oregon Laws that aren't mentioned as note in ORS, as I described. My source thought there might be some stuff as old as Oregon Laws 1979 that has a note in ORS. Apparently any "cleaning out" of archaic laws that haven't automatically sunset-ed would be up to the Oregon Law Commission, and they would still have to request a bill to make the changes. As a side note, annually there is a also a "Reviser's Bill" that takes care of typos and such. This also has to pass through both houses in the usual manner. Katr67 (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link?

Wow, looks great so far - kudos on the effort. I want to point out, though, that the link ~~(http://bluebook.state.or.us/state/legis/legis15cbig.htm)~~ in point (2) went nowhere, for me at least. Otherwise, good luck! -Tobogganoggin ^talk 23:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - not sure where I grabbed that from , but I just put the correct link ( http://bluebook.state.or.us/state/legis/legis15c.htm ) in there. Much appreciated! -Pete 23:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How, specifically, does Oregon's claim to copyright on its works hinder our work?

I'm drafting my own letters to my state representative and senator based on the sample letter provided. I want to explain to them how Wikipedia's editors are held back by Oregon's claim to copyright, but I realized that I don't fully understand how it does. I'm aware, for example, that creating maps using the state's data for Wikipedia is a potential copyright infringement, but how is that so? I wish to be more clear on the issue so I can write clear letters. Can someone explain it to me, please? Äþelwulf Talk to me. 10:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's one good example. Compare to US Government works, almost all of which are specifically not copyrighted. Other examples: simply quoting bits of ORS (the law) may be a copyright infringement, or the Oregon supreme court's decisions. Working on the List of Oregon state parks, it would have been expedient to copy information and images from the state site. But it says "Copyright." At least it did: I've just looked at a bunch of park pages and don't see it anywhere, not even in the html. —EncMstr 15:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is great. I'm not sure the maps issue is really the best one to bring up, simply because I'm not sure if what I did is legal! What I said in that draft I now think is totally wrong…you can't "get away" from copyright by extensively modifying something!

At this point, we don't have specific legislation to introduce (and I meant 2009 as my suggestion before, not 2008 which is a special session). I think a more general letter, that captures "why is stuff like Wikipedia important" and "how have public domain resources from other sources helped it," might be best. Just get the legislator aware of the issue, so that when we get in touch with a more specific plan, it's not out of the blue. There are zillions of photos from the USGS on Wikipedia, for instance, of geological features all over the state; those make a good example.

EncMstr, I don't think there's a problem with the text of laws. Aboutmovies sent me a link a while back, that seemed to indicate that the text of all laws in the United States (even on a local level) are public domain. It must have been on my talk page or email, I'll dig around for it.

Have a great New Year's, guys! Bigger and better things for 2008! ;) -Pete (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, per discussion above, the Leg Counsel only claims copyright on certain things in ORS, including the lead lines, the numbering system, and the index. Quoting ORS is perfectly acceptable. Katr67 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official photo of state legislator

Found photo of former Oregon state legislator on Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer's web-site Earl Blumenauer for Oregon. Legislator I'm interested in served in Oregon House of Reps from 1965-1977 and dead in 1984. Photo appears to be official photo probably from Oregon Blue Book (e.g. Members of Oregon House of Representatives) before Blue Books were published on-line. Blue Book is published by Oregon Secretary of State as part of the Oregon State Archives. What is status of state archive photos? Are they Public Domain like US Government photos? If not, can such photos be used in Wikipedia under Fair Use rule? It looks like they probably meet Fair Use criterion.--Orygun (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated see User:Peteforsyth/leg Megapixie (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted above query to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions; Megapixie suggested you might be able to help with answer.--Orygun (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orygun, thanks for asking…at present, the Oregon Blue Book appears to claim copyright for such images, but it's unclear whether they are actually able to do so. Seems that all of Wikipedia has been operating under the assumption that such images are not public domain. Hopefully that is incorrect, but if so, it's going to take some work to make that determination. I don't think there would be any problem using the photo under fair use in the subject's article, since the subject is no longer alive.

Also, thanks for the link to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. I wasn't aware of that page, it will be very useful! Good luck, and be sure to let us know if you learn anything interesting on the subject. -Pete (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Here's image use policy for at least part of Oregon State Archives collection (see text below Sample Images). Says: ...images displayed in Oregon Historical County Records Guide may be used free of charge without permission provided photo credit shown below is given....cite photos used from Oregon Historical County Records Guide as: Gary Halvorson, Oregon State Archives.... Seems like these archive photos may be avail for use as req'd.--Orygun (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That link is very helpful, thank you! I don't know how I missed that, I looked hard for something like that a while back. I suspect that, since the policy claims that the OSA retains control over the work, and doesn't mention derivative works, it's unfortunately probably not good enough for WP's high standards. But, this will be an excellent foundation for asking a pointed question. (In addition to OSA works, I'm wondering about the works of the Legislative Services Committee, such as [1]. More to check into…) -Pete (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My draft of the letter

Well, I finished my draft letter. Pending possible changes, I think I'm ready to handwrite it and send it (is the state legislature in session right now?). I'm posting it on the main page. As I said, it's based on Pete's draft, and just like Pete's, my letter assumes the state government's claim of copyright is legitimate, although I'm getting the impression we haven't figured that part out yet. Please tell me what you think. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 08:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The legislature will start a short session in February. Though I'm sure you can send it whether they're in session or not, I'm not sure what the best strategy would be. Send it now while they're not so busy (though they will be working on bill drafts), or wait until the short session is over when they will have more time before the '09 session to think about it? Pete, what do you think? Katr67 (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give some time to think about whether to send it now or later in the year. In the meantime though, I understand we have a statement from the government that they claim copyright, but have they cited a law saying so? I'd feel more comfortable sending the letter if I could let the legislator know which law I'm talking about. This statement was in an email, right? Who was the email from? (It might be on here somewhere, and I could just be blind.) Äþelwulf Talk to me. 17:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Athelwulf, below is the brief email exchange I referred to. I didn't follow up at the time, because I didn't have a clear grasp of the issues. The question that has come up recently, of what specific statute covers the claim of copyright, is exactly the question I couldn't articulate at the time; so I think I will reply now (and hope that Julie is still working there!)

On when to send the letter, I think it would be great to send it now (to get the concept on your legislator's "radar"); we can always send more with more specific requests later. You might want to reconsider the conclusion of the letter, requesting them to introduce legislation, on that basis. Anyway, here's the email exchange. -Pete (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject: Contact the Oregon Blue Book

Question/Suggestion -- Can you please tell me exactly what the copyright status of images, such as legislative district maps, is? I would like to be able to modify them (for clarity) and release them in a forum like Wikipedia. If there is an official and specific copyright status, I'd like to know it.

Thanks,

Pete

Hi Pete,

We claim copyright on our publications. We'd need to have a little more information from you before we would know what to tell you - which images are you interested in? how exactly, do you want to use them? Will this be for commercial use?

Please let me know so we can properly evaluate your request.

Thank you,

Julie Yamaka, Manager

Publications Unit

Oregon State Archives

Hmm. Looks like you will need to assume people are completely ignorant of Wikipedia. Since you know and I know and everyone else here knows that Wikipedia is not commercial, you should definitely develop some boilerplate text explaining what Wikipedia is. Gosh, how can everyone not know how cool this project is? Katr67 (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, my feelings exactly :) Of course, this exchange was many, many months ago…long before the advent of Collaboration of the Week, before we had articles on steamboats, or FA's on the State Capitol, etc. etc. So, maybe cut the lady a little slack ;)

But, use on Wikipedia requires that images be available for commercial use, so we should be careful how we emphasize the non-commercial nature of Wikipedia. -Pete (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phooey, there's always a catch... Katr67 (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are laws protected by copyright? Short answer: NO

This from my talk page, a while back:

Something of interest for laws/copyrights I found at Wikipedia:Public domain: Under U.S. law, laws themselves and legal rulings also form a special class. All current or formerly binding laws, codes, and regulations produced by government at any level and the public record of any court case are in the public domain. [2] This applies even to the laws enacted in states and municipalities that ordinarily claim copyright over their work. The US Copyright Office has interpreted this as applying to all "edicts of government" both domestic and foreign.[5] So I guess were a free to add laws to Wiki. Aboutmovies 01:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thanks for sharing that with me. It seems like common sense, but I've always had trouble justifying it in discussions that pop up. This will be vey useful! -Pete 17:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Note

Found this web site. Its complaint is out of date, but the issue is interesting. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/plagiarism/0398.html -Pete (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legislative Initiative (old notes from Pete's talk page)

Hello! I came across your userpage and the Oregon Legislative Initiative, to get Oregon state produced works released into the PD or licensed under CC. I would have to think this would also apply to institutionally-produced materials at each of the OUS institutions. Or does each institution (for example, the University of Oregon or UO Libraries) retain copyright on their products? This could potentially open up another stream of PD materials that might be available. akendall _(talk) 18:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy to help - particularly where copyright held by the state universities is concerned - sign me up! akendall _(talk) 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still in, and the offer for copyeditin' still stands. Keep me in the loop via e-mail or whatever. Katr67 19:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. I feel strongly that the work paid for by the people belongs to the people. Let me know how I can help on any aspect of the Oregon Open Content Initiative Duff 08:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright item (another older note)

Something of interest for laws/copyrights I found at Wikipedia:Public domain: Under U.S. law, laws themselves and legal rulings also form a special class. All current or formerly binding laws, codes, and regulations produced by government at any level and the public record of any court case are in the public domain. [2] This applies even to the laws enacted in states and municipalities that ordinarily claim copyright over their work. The US Copyright Office has interpreted this as applying to all "edicts of government" both domestic and foreign.[5]

So I guess were a free to add laws to Wiki. Aboutmovies 01:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Thanks for sharing that with me. It seems like common sense, but I've always had trouble justifying it in discussions that pop up. This will be vey useful! -Pete 17:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New email from the Archives Division!

Cross-posted at WikiProject Oregon's main talk page.

Finally, they write me back after three attempts on my part.

date: 12/05/08 11:15 AM

To whom it may concern,

Please tell me the statute that grants the Secretary of State the copyright on the Oregon Blue Book, and the nature of this copyright. Specifically, are there restrictions on creating derivative works with any material published in the Blue Book, whether commercial or not?

Thank you for your time.

-- Patrick

date: Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:49 AM

Hi Patrick,

ORS 177.120 grants copyright authority to the Secretary of State for the Oregon Blue Book. This is general copyright authority.

- Julie Yamaka, Managing Editor
Oregon Blue Book
Oregon Secretary of State, Archives Division

177.120 Oregon Blue Book. [2]

The Secretary of State shall compile and issue biennially on or about February 15 of the same year as the regular sessions of the Legislative Assembly, an official directory of all state officers, state institutions, boards and commissions and district and county officers of the state, to be known as the Oregon Blue Book, and include therein the information regarding their functions that the secretary considers most valuable to the people of the state, together with such other data and information as usually is included in similar publications. The Secretary of State may cause the Oregon Blue Book to be copyrighted.
In order to fully carry out the intent and purposes of this section, the Secretary of State may request of any state, district and county officials any information concerning their offices, institutions or departments that the secretary desires to include in the Oregon Blue Book. The officials shall furnish the information.
The Secretary of State may distribute the Oregon Blue Book free of charge, under such regulations as the secretary may establish, to schools and to federal, state, county and city officials of the State of Oregon. The copies distributed under this subsection shall not be sold.
The Secretary of State shall determine a reasonable price, and charge such price, for each copy of the Oregon Blue Book distributed to the general public. The secretary may also establish a discount price for dealers and shall set the price for resale by dealers in order to maintain a uniform price. The sum collected shall be paid over to the State Treasurer and credited to the Secretary of State Miscellaneous Receipts Account established under ORS 279A.290. [Amended by 1953 c.586 §1; 1967 s.s. c.10 §1; 1973 c.126 §1; 1981 c.467 §1; 1991 c.169 §1; 2003 c.794 §198]

Äþelwulf Talk to me. 02:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question on the list of participants

Pete, are Ward Cunningham, Fmr. Sec. of State Keisling, and Labor Commissioner Avakian really participating in this cause? I looked in the article history, thinking they were added facetiously by a sneaky vandal. But apparently you were the culprit, which is why I'm asking you. Just wanna make totally sure. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 08:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple ideas for our legislation:

I think it should make the state government revoke its copyright retroactively. This allows us to use existing editions of the Blue Book, for example. I've been eyeing the old maps of state legislative districts and congressional districts they publish in there. Those are indispensable, as far as I'm aware.
If we haven't already, we should consider which points in our legislation we're willing to give up some ground on, how much ground, and on which points we are not willing to compromise. I think it's inevitable that the bill will be amended mercilessly, and we should anticipate and accept that fact — but we should also keep our goal in mind and struggle to make sure the bill meets that goal fully once passed. We shouldn't have to draft a second or a third bill to compensate for the shortcomings of a mutilated, half-assed bill.

Äþelwulf Talk to me. 02:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- I've talked with Ward, Phil, and Comm. Avakian (I'll let you guess which ones I know well) and they are all supportive, at least of certain components of this. It would be very worthwhile to check in with them again soon.

I think it would be better to discuss this at the wiki page for the legislation, as there are a number of people involved who aren't Wikipedians. Actually, I will probably try to move the discussion to an email list soon -- most likely the Policy In Motion list, another group of folks who are supportive, and who already have an email list set up. So you may want to join that list.

The retroactive idea is a very good point -- had not occurred to me. But yes, there is certainly a lot of stuff that's already under copyright, that shouldn't be.

As for the process: I am in close contact with my state rep's staff, and have been talking with other legislators and lobbyists. We may have more "insider" allies than you realize. We can try to fly ahead of proposed amendments to some degree, but I personally think it's more important to advance as clean and good an idea as we can, and then continue to participate throughout the committee process to both defend the good points, and also incorporate any other good ideas that others propose. On the public domain side, I think it's pretty clean; it's more or less all-or-nothing. On the spending and economic development issues, it might get a little more complex.

Anyway, that's not really a disagreement, just a slightly different emphasis. What you say makes sense. -Pete (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy point #5

5. Plan a project that would have readily apparent value, but would not be possible if the law is not changed.

Is this necessary? Are there existing projects or educational resources that would have greatly increased value if the law is changed? If so, it would be easier to cite these than to plan an entirely new project. -kotra (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Pilot trainer Rod Machado

[1]