Can Anyone Clarify the Meaning of This Response Please?

[yourreviewer]

I emailed CDC with regards to the use of information from their site and this is what they replied..

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

As for CDC's information, general text information, publications available for download, and graphs developed by CDC and presented on CDC's website are works of the United States Government and in the public domain. This means that they are meant for public use and are not subject to copyright law protections. Permission is not required for use of public domain items, but CDC does ask that you credit the original institution and contributor, when known, whenever the item is used in any publicly distributed media.

You are also free to adapt and revise these materials, provided the information is distributed free of cost; however, you must remove the CDC name and logo if changes are made. Additionally, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. Section 1320b-10, no person may, for a fee, reproduce, reprint, or distribute any item consisting of a form, application, or other publication of the Department of Health and Human Services unless such person has obtained specific, written authorization for such activity. Therefore, if you wish to sell the CDC materials presented on CDC's website, you must first obtain permission to do so from CDC.

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

In the message they mention it is public domain but they also mention, "no person may, for a fee, reproduce, reprint, or distribute any item consisting of a form, application, or other publication of the Department of Health and Human Services unless such person has obtained specific, written authorization for such activity"

So does this mean I cannot sell it as a product and can only offer it for free?

Once it is public domain, doesn't it mean it can be used without any restrictions?

I would appreciate if anyone can clarify this issue.


Dan

[JayXtreme]

I can't personally answer your question..

But I just wanted to say, if you do a search for public domain info right here in the forum, you should find info. We have one member who really excels in this field... I just can't think of his name right now

If I think of it, I will drop back

Peace

Jay

[yourreviewer]

Originally Posted by JayXtreme

I can't personally answer your question..

But I just wanted to say, if you do a search for public domain info right here in the forum, you should find info. We have one member who really excels in this field... I just can't think of his name right now

If I think of it, I will drop back

Peace

Jay

Hey Jay,
Are you talking about Kneb?

Thanks,
Dan

[rosetrees]

Originally Posted by yourreviewer

So does this mean I cannot sell it as a product and can only offer it for free?

This is also from your OP

if you wish to sell the CDC materials presented on CDC's website, you must first obtain permission to do so from CDC

[yourreviewer]

Originally Posted by rosetrees

This is also from your OP

What I am confused about is when it was stated it is public domain and then there are restrictions on the usage of the content.

I didn't know that there are restrictions to PD content.

[Kay King]

There is Public Domain that occurs after a certain number of years - and Public Domain that is granted by a site such as that one. That might be the difference.

You started a thread with this same question several days ago - and I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer for a government site. If they state there are restrictions - there are restrictions.


kay

[Tizzy Dupont]

I am not an expert in public domain, but they cite a specific law that protects their publications and materials from being sold. I think this is reasonable, since they provide the information as a public service. They don't want people trying to profit from it since that could interfere with their efforts to inform the public on critical issues, for example by diverting effort and attention.

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by yourreviewer

You are also free to adapt and revise these materials, provided the information is distributed free of cost; however, you must remove the CDC name and logo if changes are made. Additionally, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. Section 1320b-10, no person may, for a fee, reproduce, reprint, or distribute any item consisting of a form, application, or other publication of the Department of Health and Human Services unless such person has obtained specific, written authorization for such activity. Therefore, if you wish to sell the CDC materials presented on CDC's website, you must first obtain permission to do so from CDC.

42 U.S.C. Section 1320b-10 is designed to prohibit people from distributing materials with the implied endorsement of the Social Security Administration and related entities. It is also designed to prevent people from selling information that is freely available from the SSA and related entities.

I think the concern here is making sure people aren't being charged for information that is intended to be freely available. So, if you're using the content for an AdSense site, you may be okay. But, if you want to use the content for use in an eBook that you intend to sell, it looks like you'll need written permission to do so.

If you ask me, however, in my "I am not a lawyer" opinion, it looks like the law was a fishy way to circumvent copyright law. Either something is protected by copyright or it is not. Copyright is what gives the copyright holder the right to control if, whether and how others may copy their work. A copyright holder cannot release a work into the public domain and continue to assert their right to control the work.

But, until and if someone challenges the law and wins, it's just something you'll have to deal with.

[David Louis Monk]

As someone above has said this is material put out in the public domain as a public service and should not be just taken as is and resold. It is not in the public domain because it is outside coyright restrictions.

This public service is a good means of getting information. You should take the gist of the information and write your own script and publish that. It is then your own work based on material you have researched.

David

[yourreviewer]

Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert

42 U.S.C. Section 1320b-10 is designed to prohibit people from distributing materials with the implied endorsement of the Social Security Administration and related entities. It is also designed to prevent people from selling information that is freely available from the SSA and related entities.

I think the concern here is making sure people aren't being charged for information that is intended to be freely available. So, if you're using the content for an AdSense site, you may be okay. But, if you want to use the content for use in an eBook that you intend to sell, it looks like you'll need written permission to do so.

If you ask me, however, in my "I am not a lawyer" opinion, it looks like the law was a fishy way to circumvent copyright law. Either something is protected by copyright or it is not. Copyright is what gives the copyright holder the right to control if, whether and how others may copy their work. A copyright holder cannot release a work into the public domain and continue to assert their right to control the work.

But, until and if someone challenges the law and wins, it's just something you'll have to deal with.

Thanks Dan. Of all the responses I got, yours was the most useful one. To be honest, that's where I got confused when they said it's public domain and then placed restrictions on it. I was looking for some materials to be rolled up as free bonuses for a paid product. Also for one product I wanted to use their information along with the existing information I already have. I guess I would rather rewrite the content to avoid any kind of issues.

[Steve Diamond]

I'm also not a lawyer. In my opinion they've misused the phrase "public domain." What they're really doing is specifying a particular type of public license. There are many types of public license, including GPL, Creative Commons, etc.

I saw three provisions in the language sent to you by the CDC:

1. You may distribute our content for free, unaltered, as long as you retain the attribution information.
2. You may distribute our content for free, altered however you like, as long as you omit all mention of the CDC.
3. You may not distribute our content in any form if you charge for it unless you have prior written permission.

I actually think that's pretty clear, aside from their misuse of "public domain."

BTW, the Obama administration has been leading an initiative to make government-published information more freely re-usable. As an example, I found this statement on Whitehouse.gov:

Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to Whitehouse.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

[yourreviewer]

Thanks for the clarification Steve. I guess the content isn't really Public Domain then.

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by Steve Diamond

I'm also not a lawyer. In my opinion they've misused the phrase "public domain." What they're really doing is specifying a particular type of public license. There are many types of public license, including GPL, Creative Commons, etc.

If it is a work created by the Federal government, it is public domain. Such works are not eligible for copyright protection. The various public licenses are based around copyright; they allow copyright holders to specify how their works may be used.

In fact, earlier this year, the White House released photos under a Creative Commons license through Flickr. The EFF pointed out that such photos, being federal government works, could not be released under Creative Commons because they were public domain and Creative Commons licenses have to be defined by the copyright holder. The White House did choose the least restrictive CC license and Flickr later added a public domain "license" and the White House switched to that. But, what it illustrates is that federal works are not eligible for copyright protection and restrictions cannot generally be placed on public domain works.

So, they are not misusing the phrase. The work is public domain.

However, a law was passed (42 U.S.C. Section 1320b-10) that prohibits people from selling such works from the Social Security Administration and related entities. So, while the works are public domain, 42 U.S.C. Section 1320b-10 puts restrictions on the sale of these specific public domain works. The law is restricted to works by the Social Security Administration, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or Department of Health and Human Services. I imagine the CDC is covered because it is an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Congress establishes copyright law, so it can make any changes that it wants. So, passing such a law as 42 U.S.C. Section 1320b-10 is within Congressional authority. In this case, perhaps a term like "restricted public domain" needs to be used to distinguish between an unrestricted public domain work and a restricted public domain work. In any event, the material is still classified as public domain even if there are legal restrictions imposed upon its use.

The United States Postal Service and the Department of Commerce have exemptions that allow them to copyright their works. In the case of 42 U.S.C. Section 1320b-10, Congress did not create such an exemption for the Social Security Administration and related entities. Presumably, in this case, it wished to encourage the free distribution of the content.

Still, though, while use of the term "public domain" is correct, there ought to be a different term used in these special cases so as to reduce or eliminate confusion.

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert

Congress establishes copyright law, so it can make any changes that it wants. So, passing such a law as 42 U.S.C. Section 1320b-10 is within Congressional authority. In this case, perhaps a term like "restricted public domain" needs to be used to distinguish between an unrestricted public domain work and a restricted public domain work. In any event, the material is still classified as public domain even if there are legal restrictions imposed upon its use.

The United States Postal Service and the Department of Commerce have exemptions that allow them to copyright their works. In the case of 42 U.S.C. Section 1320b-10, Congress did not create such an exemption for the Social Security Administration and related entities. Presumably, in this case, it wished to encourage the free distribution of the content.

As I think about it, I think I would have preferred that Congress had given the SSA an exemption, like the USPS and Department of Commerce, and allowed them to copyright their works. Then, they could have simply released their materials under a license that would allow people to freely copy or distribute the works non-commercially and require that any commercial use would require obtaining permission.

As it is, releasing something as public domain but then placing restrictions on it muddies the waters. "This is public domain but..." can be confusing. Much easier to just let the SSA, CDC, and so on put up a copyright notice.

At least that way, public domain would continue to mean "do whatever you like with it" and copyright would continue to mean there are usage restrictions. Blurring the lines between public domain and copyright is never a good idea, in my opinion.

[Mohammad Afaq]

I think Steve gave the perfect answer to the question but if I were you I would go to a law forum and post a question there or I would go to Yahoo Answers and post this question in the law section of the website.

[FifthDimension5]

I guess what it means is that, you cant resell CDC's materials as your own - you will have to offer them for free.