Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
> >Another interesting research issue is whether it was a government asset in the first
> >place. It wasn't exclusively for the benefit of the government since plenty of
> >non-governmental parties were also using it. Even if you take the approach that it
> >was an administrative task, and not research, it isn't clear that the government
>ever
> >had any obligation to perform the task in the first place.
>
> Well, to paraphrase Churchill, they may not own it but they owned it
> more than anybody else did. Plus they paid for it.
Merely paying for the collection and storage of information doesn't necessarily mean
that
you have any right in it. If you pay someone to take pictures of your wedding but
fail to
do it under a carefully worded contract, you are only entitled under US law to get
copies
of the photos. You have no right to reproduce them or distribute them publicly. The
copyright ownership in the photos belongs to the photographer because that is the
person
who "created" the work.
> If they *didn't* own it and it belonged to the Internet community - the
> only other viable candidate, then the USG can step out right now. :-)
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Diane Cabell
http://www.mama-tech.com
Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
Boston, MA
