Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE

message: Not all DOE operating units have the same copyright policy; some claim no copyrights while others reserve the right to as part of their contracts with DOE. Please check the site and the unit before assuming PD-USGov.
*Labs explicitly claiming copyrights and/or requiring non-free licensing:
**Sandia National Laboratories 
**Brookhaven National Laboratory
**Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory  (allows "non-commercial, educational, or scientific use," but other work potentially copyrighted)
**Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Same as Oak Ridge.
**Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
:*IMAGES IN THE ABOVE CATEGORY CANNOT USE A PD TAG; THEY MUST BE JUSTIFIED AS "FAIR USE"
*Labs which require attribution of some sort:
**Los Alamos National Laboratory
**:Note that scientific and technical information is © 2006 Los Alamos National Security, LLC All rights reserved.
:*YOU NEED TO INCLUDE REQUIRED ATTRIBUTION FOR IMAGES:
Unless otherwise indicated, this information has been authored by an employee or employees of the Los Alamos National Security, LLC (LANS), operator of the Los Alamos National Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC52-06NA25396 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. Government has rights to use, reproduce, and distribute this information. The public may copy and use this information without charge, provided that this Notice and any statement of authorship are reproduced on all copies. Neither the Government nor LANS makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any liability or responsibility for the use of this information.
**Argonne National Laboratory: Their image library appears to be published under a "free use with attribution" license.
:*USE 
**Oak Ridge National Laboratory 
:*Include attribution: "Courtesy of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Energy"
:https://www.ornl.gov/ornl/contact-us/Security--Privacy-Notice 
*Labs with ambiguous or nonexistent copyright policies:
**Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (seems to imply that they consider their work potentially copyrighted)
**Fermilab  COPYRIGHT STATUS: Documents authored by Fermilab employees are the result of work under U.S. Government contract DE-AC02-76CH03000 and are therefore subject to the following license: The Government is granted for itself and others acting on its behalf a paid-up, nonexclusive, irrevocable worldwide license in these documents to reproduce, prepare derivative works, and perform publicly and display publicly by or on behalf of the Government.
***Note that this is not a public domain license; quite the contrary. It gives the U.S. government (or others acting on its behalf) the rights to do these things, but not anybody else.
**Ames Laboratory
** Idaho National Laboratory, no policy found, but has a "Copyright © 2006 Idaho National Laboratory" at the bottom of every page.
**National Renewable Energy Laboratory
**Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
**Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, waffles on whether or not commercial use is allowed.
**Albany Research Center/National Energy Technology Laboratory: says that most of the information of their web site were in the public domain, but that some parts might by copyrighted by third parties.
**New Brunswick Laboratory — No policy found
**Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory — No copyright page, but then again, no pages at all! Note however they are being hosted by the Idaho Nacional Lab, see above.
:*MAYBE PD, MAYBE NOT; BETTER USE "FAIR USE" TAGS AND RATIONALES
For images which cannot use a PD tag or are otherwise questionable, consider whether or not they would fall under the "Wikipedia:Fair use" provision of U.S. copyright law. 
=== Discussion ===
On the whole issue of DOE sponsored labs who operate as contractors to the U.S. government, I refer you to the CENDI's copyright FAQ, section 4.0. Lupo 08:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NOTE ON THIS TEMPLATE

message: On the whole issue of DOE sponsored labs who operate as contractors to the U.S. government, I refer you to the CENDI's copyright FAQ, section 4.0. Lupo 08:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: In my opinion, we cannot assume public domain just on the grounds of a government contract. Therefore, with respect to works of those institutions which do not specify how their works can be used, I think it is better to be conservative about the terms under which we can use them. I have modified the notes above accordingly. However, IANAL, so I’d appreciate comments from those who know about this stuff. Alternatively, would somebody like to e-mail the institutions and ask? —xyzzyn 19:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguous/nonexistent copyright policy institutions

message: The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy publishes some material from NREL and says "Materials on the EERE Web site are in the public domain." For example, see the EERE renewable energy resource maps such as this solar energy map which says "NREL" on it. It seems that the EERE treats some NREL publications as if they are works of the US Federal Government. --Teratornis (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: NREL works published by EERE

message: The line 'IMAGES IN THE ABOVE CATEGORY CANNOT USE A PD TAG; THEY MUST BE JUSTIFIED AS "FAIR USE"' is not only overly bold-faced, but categorically overly bold.  Specifically, the absolute "MUST BE..." is not true.  In fact, permission can be obtained on a case-by-case basis, and I think this option should be pointed out. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You would need an OTRS ticket then...Smallman12q (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Or alternate formulation:  with an OTRS ticket such images can be used. An option excluded by the current language. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: OVER BOLD - and not precisely correct

message: Reading over the preceding comments, I cannot help conclude this is a case of the blind leading the blind. I don't see any comments from anyone that might be expected to have authoritative knowledge of the topic, although there were attempts. But I do see a race to the bottom that assumes the worse case scenario that all of this should be assumed copyrighted.
Looking about it seems clear that any works completed by employees of the labs while under federal contract, even if those employees are part of a 3rd party organization, are and always have been PD-Gov.
Sure, LLNL has explicitly stated this on their site, but just because Argonne doesn't cannot possibly imply they aren't covered by the same laws. Pages like Sandia's, which clearly state the work is federal and covered by federal copyright and then immediately claim copyright just make me "laugh", the same sort of laugh I emit when I see the Imperial War Museum claiming copyright on images from WWI.
So I'm going to mark all such images PD-Gov unless someone comes up with caselaw.
Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted above, the Fermilab license does not explicitly grant its license to people who are not acting on behalf of the U.S. Government. Wikiacc (¶) 18:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is any of this correct? 

message: Are images from the NNSA copyrighted? I noticed that they claim CC-BY-ND on the images from their Flickr photostream, but I would think they would be in the public domain as a U.S. government agency. MB298 (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[National Nuclear Security Administration]] 

message: What we have here are "best attempts" at trying to understand US copyright law. Editor's comments here and on project pages and deletion discussions are only opinions from non-professionals. What would be helpful is the advice of attoney who solely represets our interest. Sadly, the Wikimedia Foundation has not seen fit to retain a lawyer for such a purpose.  If it isn't a priority for them, then why are we stumbling in the dark making policy decisions? Senator2029 ❮talk❯  13:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , do you have a specific policy proposal in mind? Wikiacc (¶) 01:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is any of this correct? part 2