Is the U.S. Code copyrighted by the Government?Copying HTML: copyright violation?Can I hire a lawyer with contingent pay in the US while from abroad?Accident with borrowed car — whose insurance will apply to satisfy legal requirements?Is 36 U.S. Code § 301 relating to the National Anthem a law or a suggestion?Can code logic be copyrighted?How to legally distribute the data of all Internet websites?Is the government liable for data destroyed during a forensic examination?How much of a copyrighted book can I display in a web app?Is the White House Weekly Address copyrighted?How does copyrighted material distribution and diffusion work on a legal level?

Can the Supreme Court overturn an impeachment?

Using a siddur to Daven from in a seforim store

Why do IPv6 unique local addresses have to have a /48 prefix?

Proving a function is onto where f(x)=|x|.

Visiting the UK as unmarried couple

Is XSS in canonical link possible?

On a tidally locked planet, would time be quantized?

Will adding a BY-SA image to a blog post make the entire post BY-SA?

Can I sign legal documents with a smiley face?

Should I stop contributing to retirement accounts?

Confusion on Parallelogram

Generating adjacency matrices from isomorphic graphs

Do Legal Documents Require Signing In Standard Pen Colors?

Are all species of CANNA edible?

How do I implement a file system driver driver in Linux?

Is possible to search in vim history?

Can somebody explain Brexit in a few child-proof sentences?

Should I install hardwood flooring or cabinets first?

Query about absorption line spectra

Reply 'no position' while the job posting is still there

Can I Retrieve Email Addresses from BCC?

My friend sent me a screenshot of a transaction hash, but when I search for it I find divergent data. What happened?

Would it be legal for a US State to ban exports of a natural resource?

Journal losing indexing services



Is the U.S. Code copyrighted by the Government?


Copying HTML: copyright violation?Can I hire a lawyer with contingent pay in the US while from abroad?Accident with borrowed car — whose insurance will apply to satisfy legal requirements?Is 36 U.S. Code § 301 relating to the National Anthem a law or a suggestion?Can code logic be copyrighted?How to legally distribute the data of all Internet websites?Is the government liable for data destroyed during a forensic examination?How much of a copyrighted book can I display in a web app?Is the White House Weekly Address copyrighted?How does copyrighted material distribution and diffusion work on a legal level?













10















The age of the internet has brought all of human knowledge to our figure tips, this is only possible because of companies finding profitable reasons for storing all of this information for distribution.



Could someone make an app containing the entire U.S. Code(word for word) and distribute the app for a profit? Is the United State Code copyrighted?










share|improve this question



















  • 4





    Anything published by the United States government does not have a copyright, so you don't need to apply "fair use" in publishing it.

    – Ron Beyer
    yesterday






  • 1





    It would definitely not be "fair use", but as Ron Beyer said, there is no copyright, so no need to claim "fair use". Hypothetically, the USA could have laws that explicitly make it illegal to publish US laws for money, independent of copyright.

    – gnasher729
    yesterday







  • 1





    @gnasher729 Such a law might be found invalid on Due Process grounds, as the wide publication of laws is essential to inform people what the law is, so thay can follow it. In addition it would probably be invalid on Free Press grounds, under the First Amendment, directly or as incorporated against the states under the 14th. The Pentagon Papers case would be relevant here. But the government has never tried to pass such a law, and it would be politically highly unlikely to try. So there is no case law exactly on point.

    – David Siegel
    yesterday







  • 1





    @DavidSiegel States have tried this; Georgia tried to copyright its annotated code.

    – D M
    yesterday






  • 1





    @Ron Beyer that is too broad, many things published by the US Federal Government are under copyright, but not the text of laws. See my answer for details.

    – David Siegel
    yesterday















10















The age of the internet has brought all of human knowledge to our figure tips, this is only possible because of companies finding profitable reasons for storing all of this information for distribution.



Could someone make an app containing the entire U.S. Code(word for word) and distribute the app for a profit? Is the United State Code copyrighted?










share|improve this question



















  • 4





    Anything published by the United States government does not have a copyright, so you don't need to apply "fair use" in publishing it.

    – Ron Beyer
    yesterday






  • 1





    It would definitely not be "fair use", but as Ron Beyer said, there is no copyright, so no need to claim "fair use". Hypothetically, the USA could have laws that explicitly make it illegal to publish US laws for money, independent of copyright.

    – gnasher729
    yesterday







  • 1





    @gnasher729 Such a law might be found invalid on Due Process grounds, as the wide publication of laws is essential to inform people what the law is, so thay can follow it. In addition it would probably be invalid on Free Press grounds, under the First Amendment, directly or as incorporated against the states under the 14th. The Pentagon Papers case would be relevant here. But the government has never tried to pass such a law, and it would be politically highly unlikely to try. So there is no case law exactly on point.

    – David Siegel
    yesterday







  • 1





    @DavidSiegel States have tried this; Georgia tried to copyright its annotated code.

    – D M
    yesterday






  • 1





    @Ron Beyer that is too broad, many things published by the US Federal Government are under copyright, but not the text of laws. See my answer for details.

    – David Siegel
    yesterday













10












10








10


2






The age of the internet has brought all of human knowledge to our figure tips, this is only possible because of companies finding profitable reasons for storing all of this information for distribution.



Could someone make an app containing the entire U.S. Code(word for word) and distribute the app for a profit? Is the United State Code copyrighted?










share|improve this question
















The age of the internet has brought all of human knowledge to our figure tips, this is only possible because of companies finding profitable reasons for storing all of this information for distribution.



Could someone make an app containing the entire U.S. Code(word for word) and distribute the app for a profit? Is the United State Code copyrighted?







united-states copyright us-federal-government federal-law






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday









David Siegel

14.3k2855




14.3k2855










asked yesterday









StephanSStephanS

34513




34513







  • 4





    Anything published by the United States government does not have a copyright, so you don't need to apply "fair use" in publishing it.

    – Ron Beyer
    yesterday






  • 1





    It would definitely not be "fair use", but as Ron Beyer said, there is no copyright, so no need to claim "fair use". Hypothetically, the USA could have laws that explicitly make it illegal to publish US laws for money, independent of copyright.

    – gnasher729
    yesterday







  • 1





    @gnasher729 Such a law might be found invalid on Due Process grounds, as the wide publication of laws is essential to inform people what the law is, so thay can follow it. In addition it would probably be invalid on Free Press grounds, under the First Amendment, directly or as incorporated against the states under the 14th. The Pentagon Papers case would be relevant here. But the government has never tried to pass such a law, and it would be politically highly unlikely to try. So there is no case law exactly on point.

    – David Siegel
    yesterday







  • 1





    @DavidSiegel States have tried this; Georgia tried to copyright its annotated code.

    – D M
    yesterday






  • 1





    @Ron Beyer that is too broad, many things published by the US Federal Government are under copyright, but not the text of laws. See my answer for details.

    – David Siegel
    yesterday












  • 4





    Anything published by the United States government does not have a copyright, so you don't need to apply "fair use" in publishing it.

    – Ron Beyer
    yesterday






  • 1





    It would definitely not be "fair use", but as Ron Beyer said, there is no copyright, so no need to claim "fair use". Hypothetically, the USA could have laws that explicitly make it illegal to publish US laws for money, independent of copyright.

    – gnasher729
    yesterday







  • 1





    @gnasher729 Such a law might be found invalid on Due Process grounds, as the wide publication of laws is essential to inform people what the law is, so thay can follow it. In addition it would probably be invalid on Free Press grounds, under the First Amendment, directly or as incorporated against the states under the 14th. The Pentagon Papers case would be relevant here. But the government has never tried to pass such a law, and it would be politically highly unlikely to try. So there is no case law exactly on point.

    – David Siegel
    yesterday







  • 1





    @DavidSiegel States have tried this; Georgia tried to copyright its annotated code.

    – D M
    yesterday






  • 1





    @Ron Beyer that is too broad, many things published by the US Federal Government are under copyright, but not the text of laws. See my answer for details.

    – David Siegel
    yesterday







4




4





Anything published by the United States government does not have a copyright, so you don't need to apply "fair use" in publishing it.

– Ron Beyer
yesterday





Anything published by the United States government does not have a copyright, so you don't need to apply "fair use" in publishing it.

– Ron Beyer
yesterday




1




1





It would definitely not be "fair use", but as Ron Beyer said, there is no copyright, so no need to claim "fair use". Hypothetically, the USA could have laws that explicitly make it illegal to publish US laws for money, independent of copyright.

– gnasher729
yesterday






It would definitely not be "fair use", but as Ron Beyer said, there is no copyright, so no need to claim "fair use". Hypothetically, the USA could have laws that explicitly make it illegal to publish US laws for money, independent of copyright.

– gnasher729
yesterday





1




1





@gnasher729 Such a law might be found invalid on Due Process grounds, as the wide publication of laws is essential to inform people what the law is, so thay can follow it. In addition it would probably be invalid on Free Press grounds, under the First Amendment, directly or as incorporated against the states under the 14th. The Pentagon Papers case would be relevant here. But the government has never tried to pass such a law, and it would be politically highly unlikely to try. So there is no case law exactly on point.

– David Siegel
yesterday






@gnasher729 Such a law might be found invalid on Due Process grounds, as the wide publication of laws is essential to inform people what the law is, so thay can follow it. In addition it would probably be invalid on Free Press grounds, under the First Amendment, directly or as incorporated against the states under the 14th. The Pentagon Papers case would be relevant here. But the government has never tried to pass such a law, and it would be politically highly unlikely to try. So there is no case law exactly on point.

– David Siegel
yesterday





1




1





@DavidSiegel States have tried this; Georgia tried to copyright its annotated code.

– D M
yesterday





@DavidSiegel States have tried this; Georgia tried to copyright its annotated code.

– D M
yesterday




1




1





@Ron Beyer that is too broad, many things published by the US Federal Government are under copyright, but not the text of laws. See my answer for details.

– David Siegel
yesterday





@Ron Beyer that is too broad, many things published by the US Federal Government are under copyright, but not the text of laws. See my answer for details.

– David Siegel
yesterday










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















19














US Laws are Free of Copyright



Federal Works



17 USC 105 says:




Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.




The phrase "work of the United States Government" has been interpreted to mean any work created by an officer or employee of the government in the course of his or her official duties. See 17 USC 101 for the official definition.



This includes the text of legislation. The official texts of all US laws (and federal regulations) are in the public domain, and no one may claim a copyright on them. Strictly speaking this is not a matter of "fair use". Fair use is an exception for limited uses of copyrighted content. These laws are not protected by copyright at all, and never have been.



State Works



In addition, while works of the various US states are not automatically in the public domain, the text of state laws, and I believe of the various state and local regulations are also in the public domain. This Wikipedia article says:




Federal statutes are in the public domain and no copyright attaches to them. The same is true of court decisions.




In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-Judge panel of the US 11th circuit Court of Appeals wrote:




The general rule that legislative codifications are uncopyrightable derives from an understanding of the nature of law and the basic idea that the People, as the reservoir of all sovereignty, are the source of our law. For purposes of the Copyright Act, this means that the People are the constructive authors of those official legal promulgations of government that represent an exercise of sovereign authority. And because they are the authors, the People are the owners of these works, meaning that the works are intrinsically public domain material and, therefore, uncopyrightable.




The Wikipedia article linked above quotes State of Georgia v. Harrison Co, 548 F.Supp 110, 114 (N.D. Ga 1982) as saying:




The citizens are the authors of the law, and therefore its owners, regardless of who actually drafts the provisions, because the law derives its authority from the consent of the public, expressed through the democratic process.




It also quotes a US copyright office publication as saying:




As a matter of longstanding public policy, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. Likewise, the Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.




However, some states do attempt to claim copyright in electronic versions of their state codes. The 2015 LA Times story "Georgia claims that publishing its state laws for free online is 'terrorism'" reports on a recent infringement suit by the State of Georgia against Carl Malamud , who makes copies of the Georgia Annotated Code available for free online. The state claimed that the annotations are protected by copyright.



In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-Judge panel of the US 11th circuit Court of Appeals found this clim to be without merit.




After a thorough review of the law, and an examination of the annotations, we conclude that no valid copyright interest can be asserted in any part of the OCGA.




...




In most states the “official” code is comprised of statutory text alone, and all agree that a state’s codification cannot be copyrighted because the authorship is ultimately attributable to the People.




...




When a legislature enacts a law, or a court writes an opinion rendering an official interpretation of the law in a case or controversy, they are undisputedly speaking on behalf of the People, who are properly regarded as the author of the work.




...




Because we conclude that no copyright can be held in the annotations, we have no occasion to address the parties’ other arguments regarding originality and fair use.




Non-US Laws



UK laws are protected under Crown Copyright, althogyuh permissive licenses for reproducing copies are easily available. Many other countries have similar provisions. The US, however, does not generally recognize such copyrights.



The position of the US Copyright Office is that:




[T]he Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.




Laws Incorporating Copyrighted Works by Reference



Laws sometimes include by reference privately developed and copyrighted documents. For example, building codes and other safety codes may be developed by private groups, often national non-profit organizations, and incorporated into state laws by reference. This means that the text of the privately developed code is legally part of the law, and the law cannot be fully understood and complied with without reading the code. But the code is a copyrighted work, and the copyright holder may charge for copies.



For example, this official Texas web page says:




The Texas statutes, administrative rules, and local ordinances occasionally adopt, incorporate, or refer to technical codes published by independent organizations. These codes describe scientific and safety standards for structures and discuss specifications for fire safety, electrical systems, plumbing fixtures, construction practices, and many other topics.




...




Codes are not reprinted within the statutes or the local ordinances themselves. They are "adopted by reference" or "incorporated by reference" and are usually available to review at the city clerk's office and at some public libraries. Please contact your local public library or your local government for assistance accessing codes not available online.




Federal Copyrights



However, this does not mean that anything "published by the US government" is in the public domain or is free of copyright. The Federal government often hires contractors to prepare various works. These works are protected by copyright. Frequently, the contracts will assign this copyright to the Federal government, which as 17 USC 105 says:




... is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.




Such works are therefore copyrighted, and the copyright holder is or may be the US Federal Government. They are protected in the same way and to the same degree as works of private authorship.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    This excellent answer could be completed by pointing out the problem of laws that incorporate copyrighted material by reference (for example the National Electrical Code)

    – Ben Voigt
    yesterday











  • @Ben Voigt Thank you. Do you have a link that could be used in such an addition to the answer?

    – David Siegel
    yesterday






  • 1





    Does this help? sll.texas.gov/law-legislation/building-codes

    – Ben Voigt
    yesterday











  • @Ben Voigt Done, see above. Thank you!

    – David Siegel
    yesterday











  • @DavidSiegel They can charge for copies, but you can also make copies of them without violating copyright when the purpose of the copies is to permit compliance with the laws. When using a copy of a law or something referred to in a law, the content of that thing is purely utilitarian and there is no way to separate the creative contents of the law from its utilitarian function of setting the precise rules. No substitute for the work can serve an even remotely analogous function. You can't copyright magic words to charge others for casting effective spells.

    – David Schwartz
    yesterday











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38350%2fis-the-u-s-code-copyrighted-by-the-government%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









19














US Laws are Free of Copyright



Federal Works



17 USC 105 says:




Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.




The phrase "work of the United States Government" has been interpreted to mean any work created by an officer or employee of the government in the course of his or her official duties. See 17 USC 101 for the official definition.



This includes the text of legislation. The official texts of all US laws (and federal regulations) are in the public domain, and no one may claim a copyright on them. Strictly speaking this is not a matter of "fair use". Fair use is an exception for limited uses of copyrighted content. These laws are not protected by copyright at all, and never have been.



State Works



In addition, while works of the various US states are not automatically in the public domain, the text of state laws, and I believe of the various state and local regulations are also in the public domain. This Wikipedia article says:




Federal statutes are in the public domain and no copyright attaches to them. The same is true of court decisions.




In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-Judge panel of the US 11th circuit Court of Appeals wrote:




The general rule that legislative codifications are uncopyrightable derives from an understanding of the nature of law and the basic idea that the People, as the reservoir of all sovereignty, are the source of our law. For purposes of the Copyright Act, this means that the People are the constructive authors of those official legal promulgations of government that represent an exercise of sovereign authority. And because they are the authors, the People are the owners of these works, meaning that the works are intrinsically public domain material and, therefore, uncopyrightable.




The Wikipedia article linked above quotes State of Georgia v. Harrison Co, 548 F.Supp 110, 114 (N.D. Ga 1982) as saying:




The citizens are the authors of the law, and therefore its owners, regardless of who actually drafts the provisions, because the law derives its authority from the consent of the public, expressed through the democratic process.




It also quotes a US copyright office publication as saying:




As a matter of longstanding public policy, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. Likewise, the Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.




However, some states do attempt to claim copyright in electronic versions of their state codes. The 2015 LA Times story "Georgia claims that publishing its state laws for free online is 'terrorism'" reports on a recent infringement suit by the State of Georgia against Carl Malamud , who makes copies of the Georgia Annotated Code available for free online. The state claimed that the annotations are protected by copyright.



In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-Judge panel of the US 11th circuit Court of Appeals found this clim to be without merit.




After a thorough review of the law, and an examination of the annotations, we conclude that no valid copyright interest can be asserted in any part of the OCGA.




...




In most states the “official” code is comprised of statutory text alone, and all agree that a state’s codification cannot be copyrighted because the authorship is ultimately attributable to the People.




...




When a legislature enacts a law, or a court writes an opinion rendering an official interpretation of the law in a case or controversy, they are undisputedly speaking on behalf of the People, who are properly regarded as the author of the work.




...




Because we conclude that no copyright can be held in the annotations, we have no occasion to address the parties’ other arguments regarding originality and fair use.




Non-US Laws



UK laws are protected under Crown Copyright, althogyuh permissive licenses for reproducing copies are easily available. Many other countries have similar provisions. The US, however, does not generally recognize such copyrights.



The position of the US Copyright Office is that:




[T]he Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.




Laws Incorporating Copyrighted Works by Reference



Laws sometimes include by reference privately developed and copyrighted documents. For example, building codes and other safety codes may be developed by private groups, often national non-profit organizations, and incorporated into state laws by reference. This means that the text of the privately developed code is legally part of the law, and the law cannot be fully understood and complied with without reading the code. But the code is a copyrighted work, and the copyright holder may charge for copies.



For example, this official Texas web page says:




The Texas statutes, administrative rules, and local ordinances occasionally adopt, incorporate, or refer to technical codes published by independent organizations. These codes describe scientific and safety standards for structures and discuss specifications for fire safety, electrical systems, plumbing fixtures, construction practices, and many other topics.




...




Codes are not reprinted within the statutes or the local ordinances themselves. They are "adopted by reference" or "incorporated by reference" and are usually available to review at the city clerk's office and at some public libraries. Please contact your local public library or your local government for assistance accessing codes not available online.




Federal Copyrights



However, this does not mean that anything "published by the US government" is in the public domain or is free of copyright. The Federal government often hires contractors to prepare various works. These works are protected by copyright. Frequently, the contracts will assign this copyright to the Federal government, which as 17 USC 105 says:




... is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.




Such works are therefore copyrighted, and the copyright holder is or may be the US Federal Government. They are protected in the same way and to the same degree as works of private authorship.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    This excellent answer could be completed by pointing out the problem of laws that incorporate copyrighted material by reference (for example the National Electrical Code)

    – Ben Voigt
    yesterday











  • @Ben Voigt Thank you. Do you have a link that could be used in such an addition to the answer?

    – David Siegel
    yesterday






  • 1





    Does this help? sll.texas.gov/law-legislation/building-codes

    – Ben Voigt
    yesterday











  • @Ben Voigt Done, see above. Thank you!

    – David Siegel
    yesterday











  • @DavidSiegel They can charge for copies, but you can also make copies of them without violating copyright when the purpose of the copies is to permit compliance with the laws. When using a copy of a law or something referred to in a law, the content of that thing is purely utilitarian and there is no way to separate the creative contents of the law from its utilitarian function of setting the precise rules. No substitute for the work can serve an even remotely analogous function. You can't copyright magic words to charge others for casting effective spells.

    – David Schwartz
    yesterday
















19














US Laws are Free of Copyright



Federal Works



17 USC 105 says:




Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.




The phrase "work of the United States Government" has been interpreted to mean any work created by an officer or employee of the government in the course of his or her official duties. See 17 USC 101 for the official definition.



This includes the text of legislation. The official texts of all US laws (and federal regulations) are in the public domain, and no one may claim a copyright on them. Strictly speaking this is not a matter of "fair use". Fair use is an exception for limited uses of copyrighted content. These laws are not protected by copyright at all, and never have been.



State Works



In addition, while works of the various US states are not automatically in the public domain, the text of state laws, and I believe of the various state and local regulations are also in the public domain. This Wikipedia article says:




Federal statutes are in the public domain and no copyright attaches to them. The same is true of court decisions.




In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-Judge panel of the US 11th circuit Court of Appeals wrote:




The general rule that legislative codifications are uncopyrightable derives from an understanding of the nature of law and the basic idea that the People, as the reservoir of all sovereignty, are the source of our law. For purposes of the Copyright Act, this means that the People are the constructive authors of those official legal promulgations of government that represent an exercise of sovereign authority. And because they are the authors, the People are the owners of these works, meaning that the works are intrinsically public domain material and, therefore, uncopyrightable.




The Wikipedia article linked above quotes State of Georgia v. Harrison Co, 548 F.Supp 110, 114 (N.D. Ga 1982) as saying:




The citizens are the authors of the law, and therefore its owners, regardless of who actually drafts the provisions, because the law derives its authority from the consent of the public, expressed through the democratic process.




It also quotes a US copyright office publication as saying:




As a matter of longstanding public policy, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. Likewise, the Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.




However, some states do attempt to claim copyright in electronic versions of their state codes. The 2015 LA Times story "Georgia claims that publishing its state laws for free online is 'terrorism'" reports on a recent infringement suit by the State of Georgia against Carl Malamud , who makes copies of the Georgia Annotated Code available for free online. The state claimed that the annotations are protected by copyright.



In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-Judge panel of the US 11th circuit Court of Appeals found this clim to be without merit.




After a thorough review of the law, and an examination of the annotations, we conclude that no valid copyright interest can be asserted in any part of the OCGA.




...




In most states the “official” code is comprised of statutory text alone, and all agree that a state’s codification cannot be copyrighted because the authorship is ultimately attributable to the People.




...




When a legislature enacts a law, or a court writes an opinion rendering an official interpretation of the law in a case or controversy, they are undisputedly speaking on behalf of the People, who are properly regarded as the author of the work.




...




Because we conclude that no copyright can be held in the annotations, we have no occasion to address the parties’ other arguments regarding originality and fair use.




Non-US Laws



UK laws are protected under Crown Copyright, althogyuh permissive licenses for reproducing copies are easily available. Many other countries have similar provisions. The US, however, does not generally recognize such copyrights.



The position of the US Copyright Office is that:




[T]he Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.




Laws Incorporating Copyrighted Works by Reference



Laws sometimes include by reference privately developed and copyrighted documents. For example, building codes and other safety codes may be developed by private groups, often national non-profit organizations, and incorporated into state laws by reference. This means that the text of the privately developed code is legally part of the law, and the law cannot be fully understood and complied with without reading the code. But the code is a copyrighted work, and the copyright holder may charge for copies.



For example, this official Texas web page says:




The Texas statutes, administrative rules, and local ordinances occasionally adopt, incorporate, or refer to technical codes published by independent organizations. These codes describe scientific and safety standards for structures and discuss specifications for fire safety, electrical systems, plumbing fixtures, construction practices, and many other topics.




...




Codes are not reprinted within the statutes or the local ordinances themselves. They are "adopted by reference" or "incorporated by reference" and are usually available to review at the city clerk's office and at some public libraries. Please contact your local public library or your local government for assistance accessing codes not available online.




Federal Copyrights



However, this does not mean that anything "published by the US government" is in the public domain or is free of copyright. The Federal government often hires contractors to prepare various works. These works are protected by copyright. Frequently, the contracts will assign this copyright to the Federal government, which as 17 USC 105 says:




... is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.




Such works are therefore copyrighted, and the copyright holder is or may be the US Federal Government. They are protected in the same way and to the same degree as works of private authorship.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    This excellent answer could be completed by pointing out the problem of laws that incorporate copyrighted material by reference (for example the National Electrical Code)

    – Ben Voigt
    yesterday











  • @Ben Voigt Thank you. Do you have a link that could be used in such an addition to the answer?

    – David Siegel
    yesterday






  • 1





    Does this help? sll.texas.gov/law-legislation/building-codes

    – Ben Voigt
    yesterday











  • @Ben Voigt Done, see above. Thank you!

    – David Siegel
    yesterday











  • @DavidSiegel They can charge for copies, but you can also make copies of them without violating copyright when the purpose of the copies is to permit compliance with the laws. When using a copy of a law or something referred to in a law, the content of that thing is purely utilitarian and there is no way to separate the creative contents of the law from its utilitarian function of setting the precise rules. No substitute for the work can serve an even remotely analogous function. You can't copyright magic words to charge others for casting effective spells.

    – David Schwartz
    yesterday














19












19








19







US Laws are Free of Copyright



Federal Works



17 USC 105 says:




Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.




The phrase "work of the United States Government" has been interpreted to mean any work created by an officer or employee of the government in the course of his or her official duties. See 17 USC 101 for the official definition.



This includes the text of legislation. The official texts of all US laws (and federal regulations) are in the public domain, and no one may claim a copyright on them. Strictly speaking this is not a matter of "fair use". Fair use is an exception for limited uses of copyrighted content. These laws are not protected by copyright at all, and never have been.



State Works



In addition, while works of the various US states are not automatically in the public domain, the text of state laws, and I believe of the various state and local regulations are also in the public domain. This Wikipedia article says:




Federal statutes are in the public domain and no copyright attaches to them. The same is true of court decisions.




In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-Judge panel of the US 11th circuit Court of Appeals wrote:




The general rule that legislative codifications are uncopyrightable derives from an understanding of the nature of law and the basic idea that the People, as the reservoir of all sovereignty, are the source of our law. For purposes of the Copyright Act, this means that the People are the constructive authors of those official legal promulgations of government that represent an exercise of sovereign authority. And because they are the authors, the People are the owners of these works, meaning that the works are intrinsically public domain material and, therefore, uncopyrightable.




The Wikipedia article linked above quotes State of Georgia v. Harrison Co, 548 F.Supp 110, 114 (N.D. Ga 1982) as saying:




The citizens are the authors of the law, and therefore its owners, regardless of who actually drafts the provisions, because the law derives its authority from the consent of the public, expressed through the democratic process.




It also quotes a US copyright office publication as saying:




As a matter of longstanding public policy, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. Likewise, the Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.




However, some states do attempt to claim copyright in electronic versions of their state codes. The 2015 LA Times story "Georgia claims that publishing its state laws for free online is 'terrorism'" reports on a recent infringement suit by the State of Georgia against Carl Malamud , who makes copies of the Georgia Annotated Code available for free online. The state claimed that the annotations are protected by copyright.



In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-Judge panel of the US 11th circuit Court of Appeals found this clim to be without merit.




After a thorough review of the law, and an examination of the annotations, we conclude that no valid copyright interest can be asserted in any part of the OCGA.




...




In most states the “official” code is comprised of statutory text alone, and all agree that a state’s codification cannot be copyrighted because the authorship is ultimately attributable to the People.




...




When a legislature enacts a law, or a court writes an opinion rendering an official interpretation of the law in a case or controversy, they are undisputedly speaking on behalf of the People, who are properly regarded as the author of the work.




...




Because we conclude that no copyright can be held in the annotations, we have no occasion to address the parties’ other arguments regarding originality and fair use.




Non-US Laws



UK laws are protected under Crown Copyright, althogyuh permissive licenses for reproducing copies are easily available. Many other countries have similar provisions. The US, however, does not generally recognize such copyrights.



The position of the US Copyright Office is that:




[T]he Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.




Laws Incorporating Copyrighted Works by Reference



Laws sometimes include by reference privately developed and copyrighted documents. For example, building codes and other safety codes may be developed by private groups, often national non-profit organizations, and incorporated into state laws by reference. This means that the text of the privately developed code is legally part of the law, and the law cannot be fully understood and complied with without reading the code. But the code is a copyrighted work, and the copyright holder may charge for copies.



For example, this official Texas web page says:




The Texas statutes, administrative rules, and local ordinances occasionally adopt, incorporate, or refer to technical codes published by independent organizations. These codes describe scientific and safety standards for structures and discuss specifications for fire safety, electrical systems, plumbing fixtures, construction practices, and many other topics.




...




Codes are not reprinted within the statutes or the local ordinances themselves. They are "adopted by reference" or "incorporated by reference" and are usually available to review at the city clerk's office and at some public libraries. Please contact your local public library or your local government for assistance accessing codes not available online.




Federal Copyrights



However, this does not mean that anything "published by the US government" is in the public domain or is free of copyright. The Federal government often hires contractors to prepare various works. These works are protected by copyright. Frequently, the contracts will assign this copyright to the Federal government, which as 17 USC 105 says:




... is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.




Such works are therefore copyrighted, and the copyright holder is or may be the US Federal Government. They are protected in the same way and to the same degree as works of private authorship.






share|improve this answer















US Laws are Free of Copyright



Federal Works



17 USC 105 says:




Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.




The phrase "work of the United States Government" has been interpreted to mean any work created by an officer or employee of the government in the course of his or her official duties. See 17 USC 101 for the official definition.



This includes the text of legislation. The official texts of all US laws (and federal regulations) are in the public domain, and no one may claim a copyright on them. Strictly speaking this is not a matter of "fair use". Fair use is an exception for limited uses of copyrighted content. These laws are not protected by copyright at all, and never have been.



State Works



In addition, while works of the various US states are not automatically in the public domain, the text of state laws, and I believe of the various state and local regulations are also in the public domain. This Wikipedia article says:




Federal statutes are in the public domain and no copyright attaches to them. The same is true of court decisions.




In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-Judge panel of the US 11th circuit Court of Appeals wrote:




The general rule that legislative codifications are uncopyrightable derives from an understanding of the nature of law and the basic idea that the People, as the reservoir of all sovereignty, are the source of our law. For purposes of the Copyright Act, this means that the People are the constructive authors of those official legal promulgations of government that represent an exercise of sovereign authority. And because they are the authors, the People are the owners of these works, meaning that the works are intrinsically public domain material and, therefore, uncopyrightable.




The Wikipedia article linked above quotes State of Georgia v. Harrison Co, 548 F.Supp 110, 114 (N.D. Ga 1982) as saying:




The citizens are the authors of the law, and therefore its owners, regardless of who actually drafts the provisions, because the law derives its authority from the consent of the public, expressed through the democratic process.




It also quotes a US copyright office publication as saying:




As a matter of longstanding public policy, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. Likewise, the Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.




However, some states do attempt to claim copyright in electronic versions of their state codes. The 2015 LA Times story "Georgia claims that publishing its state laws for free online is 'terrorism'" reports on a recent infringement suit by the State of Georgia against Carl Malamud , who makes copies of the Georgia Annotated Code available for free online. The state claimed that the annotations are protected by copyright.



In State of Georgia vs Public Resource Org, Inc 11th Circuit No. 17-11589, (October 19, 2018) a three-Judge panel of the US 11th circuit Court of Appeals found this clim to be without merit.




After a thorough review of the law, and an examination of the annotations, we conclude that no valid copyright interest can be asserted in any part of the OCGA.




...




In most states the “official” code is comprised of statutory text alone, and all agree that a state’s codification cannot be copyrighted because the authorship is ultimately attributable to the People.




...




When a legislature enacts a law, or a court writes an opinion rendering an official interpretation of the law in a case or controversy, they are undisputedly speaking on behalf of the People, who are properly regarded as the author of the work.




...




Because we conclude that no copyright can be held in the annotations, we have no occasion to address the parties’ other arguments regarding originality and fair use.




Non-US Laws



UK laws are protected under Crown Copyright, althogyuh permissive licenses for reproducing copies are easily available. Many other countries have similar provisions. The US, however, does not generally recognize such copyrights.



The position of the US Copyright Office is that:




[T]he Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.




Laws Incorporating Copyrighted Works by Reference



Laws sometimes include by reference privately developed and copyrighted documents. For example, building codes and other safety codes may be developed by private groups, often national non-profit organizations, and incorporated into state laws by reference. This means that the text of the privately developed code is legally part of the law, and the law cannot be fully understood and complied with without reading the code. But the code is a copyrighted work, and the copyright holder may charge for copies.



For example, this official Texas web page says:




The Texas statutes, administrative rules, and local ordinances occasionally adopt, incorporate, or refer to technical codes published by independent organizations. These codes describe scientific and safety standards for structures and discuss specifications for fire safety, electrical systems, plumbing fixtures, construction practices, and many other topics.




...




Codes are not reprinted within the statutes or the local ordinances themselves. They are "adopted by reference" or "incorporated by reference" and are usually available to review at the city clerk's office and at some public libraries. Please contact your local public library or your local government for assistance accessing codes not available online.




Federal Copyrights



However, this does not mean that anything "published by the US government" is in the public domain or is free of copyright. The Federal government often hires contractors to prepare various works. These works are protected by copyright. Frequently, the contracts will assign this copyright to the Federal government, which as 17 USC 105 says:




... is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.




Such works are therefore copyrighted, and the copyright holder is or may be the US Federal Government. They are protected in the same way and to the same degree as works of private authorship.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 14 hours ago

























answered yesterday









David SiegelDavid Siegel

14.3k2855




14.3k2855







  • 1





    This excellent answer could be completed by pointing out the problem of laws that incorporate copyrighted material by reference (for example the National Electrical Code)

    – Ben Voigt
    yesterday











  • @Ben Voigt Thank you. Do you have a link that could be used in such an addition to the answer?

    – David Siegel
    yesterday






  • 1





    Does this help? sll.texas.gov/law-legislation/building-codes

    – Ben Voigt
    yesterday











  • @Ben Voigt Done, see above. Thank you!

    – David Siegel
    yesterday











  • @DavidSiegel They can charge for copies, but you can also make copies of them without violating copyright when the purpose of the copies is to permit compliance with the laws. When using a copy of a law or something referred to in a law, the content of that thing is purely utilitarian and there is no way to separate the creative contents of the law from its utilitarian function of setting the precise rules. No substitute for the work can serve an even remotely analogous function. You can't copyright magic words to charge others for casting effective spells.

    – David Schwartz
    yesterday













  • 1





    This excellent answer could be completed by pointing out the problem of laws that incorporate copyrighted material by reference (for example the National Electrical Code)

    – Ben Voigt
    yesterday











  • @Ben Voigt Thank you. Do you have a link that could be used in such an addition to the answer?

    – David Siegel
    yesterday






  • 1





    Does this help? sll.texas.gov/law-legislation/building-codes

    – Ben Voigt
    yesterday











  • @Ben Voigt Done, see above. Thank you!

    – David Siegel
    yesterday











  • @DavidSiegel They can charge for copies, but you can also make copies of them without violating copyright when the purpose of the copies is to permit compliance with the laws. When using a copy of a law or something referred to in a law, the content of that thing is purely utilitarian and there is no way to separate the creative contents of the law from its utilitarian function of setting the precise rules. No substitute for the work can serve an even remotely analogous function. You can't copyright magic words to charge others for casting effective spells.

    – David Schwartz
    yesterday








1




1





This excellent answer could be completed by pointing out the problem of laws that incorporate copyrighted material by reference (for example the National Electrical Code)

– Ben Voigt
yesterday





This excellent answer could be completed by pointing out the problem of laws that incorporate copyrighted material by reference (for example the National Electrical Code)

– Ben Voigt
yesterday













@Ben Voigt Thank you. Do you have a link that could be used in such an addition to the answer?

– David Siegel
yesterday





@Ben Voigt Thank you. Do you have a link that could be used in such an addition to the answer?

– David Siegel
yesterday




1




1





Does this help? sll.texas.gov/law-legislation/building-codes

– Ben Voigt
yesterday





Does this help? sll.texas.gov/law-legislation/building-codes

– Ben Voigt
yesterday













@Ben Voigt Done, see above. Thank you!

– David Siegel
yesterday





@Ben Voigt Done, see above. Thank you!

– David Siegel
yesterday













@DavidSiegel They can charge for copies, but you can also make copies of them without violating copyright when the purpose of the copies is to permit compliance with the laws. When using a copy of a law or something referred to in a law, the content of that thing is purely utilitarian and there is no way to separate the creative contents of the law from its utilitarian function of setting the precise rules. No substitute for the work can serve an even remotely analogous function. You can't copyright magic words to charge others for casting effective spells.

– David Schwartz
yesterday






@DavidSiegel They can charge for copies, but you can also make copies of them without violating copyright when the purpose of the copies is to permit compliance with the laws. When using a copy of a law or something referred to in a law, the content of that thing is purely utilitarian and there is no way to separate the creative contents of the law from its utilitarian function of setting the precise rules. No substitute for the work can serve an even remotely analogous function. You can't copyright magic words to charge others for casting effective spells.

– David Schwartz
yesterday


















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38350%2fis-the-u-s-code-copyrighted-by-the-government%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

getting Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender working in the command lineHow to connect to CheckPoint VPN on Ubuntu 18.04LTS?Will the Linux ( red-hat ) Open VPNC Client connect to checkpoint or nortel VPN gateways?VPN client for linux machine + support checkpoint gatewayVPN SSL Network Extender in FirefoxLinux Checkpoint SNX tool configuration issuesCheck Point - Connect under Linux - snx + OTPSNX VPN Ububuntu 18.XXUsing Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender CLI with certificateVPN with network manager (nm-applet) is not workingWill the Linux ( red-hat ) Open VPNC Client connect to checkpoint or nortel VPN gateways?VPN client for linux machine + support checkpoint gatewayImport VPN config files to NetworkManager from command lineTrouble connecting to VPN using network-manager, while command line worksStart a VPN connection with PPTP protocol on command linestarting a docker service daemon breaks the vpn networkCan't connect to vpn with Network-managerVPN SSL Network Extender in FirefoxUsing Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender CLI with certificate

NetworkManager fails with “Could not find source connection”Trouble connecting to VPN using network-manager, while command line worksHow can I be notified about state changes to a VPN adapterBacktrack 5 R3 - Refuses to connect to VPNFeed all traffic through OpenVPN for a specific network namespace onlyRun daemon on startup in Debian once openvpn connection establishedpfsense tcp connection between openvpn and lan is brokenInternet connection problem with web browsers onlyWhy does NetworkManager explicitly support tun/tap devices?Browser issues with VPNTwo IP addresses assigned to the same network card - OpenVPN issues?Cannot connect to WiFi with nmcli, although secrets are provided

대한민국 목차 국명 지리 역사 정치 국방 경제 사회 문화 국제 순위 관련 항목 각주 외부 링크 둘러보기 메뉴북위 37° 34′ 08″ 동경 126° 58′ 36″ / 북위 37.568889° 동경 126.976667°  / 37.568889; 126.976667ehThe Korean Repository문단을 편집문단을 편집추가해Clarkson PLC 사Report for Selected Countries and Subjects-Korea“Human Development Index and its components: P.198”“http://www.law.go.kr/%EB%B2%95%EB%A0%B9/%EB%8C%80%ED%95%9C%EB%AF%BC%EA%B5%AD%EA%B5%AD%EA%B8%B0%EB%B2%95”"한국은 국제법상 한반도 유일 합법정부 아니다" - 오마이뉴스 모바일Report for Selected Countries and Subjects: South Korea격동의 역사와 함께한 조선일보 90년 : 조선일보 인수해 혁신시킨 신석우, 임시정부 때는 '대한민국' 국호(國號) 정해《우리가 몰랐던 우리 역사: 나라 이름의 비밀을 찾아가는 역사 여행》“남북 공식호칭 ‘남한’‘북한’으로 쓴다”“Corea 대 Korea, 누가 이긴 거야?”국내기후자료 - 한국[김대중 前 대통령 서거] 과감한 구조개혁 'DJ노믹스'로 최단기간 환란극복 :: 네이버 뉴스“이라크 "韓-쿠르드 유전개발 MOU 승인 안해"(종합)”“해외 우리국민 추방사례 43%가 일본”차기전차 K2'흑표'의 세계 최고 전력 분석, 쿠키뉴스 엄기영, 2007-03-02두산인프라, 헬기잡는 장갑차 'K21'...내년부터 공급, 고뉴스 이대준, 2008-10-30과거 내용 찾기mk 뉴스 - 구매력 기준으로 보면 한국 1인당 소득 3만弗과거 내용 찾기"The N-11: More Than an Acronym"Archived조선일보 최우석, 2008-11-01Global 500 2008: Countries - South Korea“몇년째 '시한폭탄'... 가계부채, 올해는 터질까”가구당 부채 5000만원 처음 넘어서“‘빚’으로 내몰리는 사회.. 위기의 가계대출”“[경제365] 공공부문 부채 급증…800조 육박”“"소득 양극화 다소 완화...불평등은 여전"”“공정사회·공생발전 한참 멀었네”iSuppli,08年2QのDRAMシェア・ランキングを発表(08/8/11)South Korea dominates shipbuilding industry | Stock Market News & Stocks to Watch from StraightStocks한국 자동차 생산, 3년 연속 세계 5위자동차수출 '현대-삼성 웃고 기아-대우-쌍용은 울고' 과거 내용 찾기동반성장위 창립 1주년 맞아Archived"중기적합 3개업종 합의 무시한 채 선정"李대통령, 사업 무분별 확장 소상공인 생계 위협 질타삼성-LG, 서민업종인 빵·분식사업 잇따라 철수상생은 뒷전…SSM ‘몸집 불리기’ 혈안Archived“경부고속도에 '아시안하이웨이' 표지판”'철의 실크로드' 앞서 '말(言)의 실크로드'부터, 프레시안 정창현, 2008-10-01“'서울 지하철은 안전한가?'”“서울시 “올해 안에 모든 지하철역 스크린도어 설치””“부산지하철 1,2호선 승강장 안전펜스 설치 완료”“전교조, 정부 노조 통계서 처음 빠져”“[Weekly BIZ] 도요타 '제로 이사회'가 리콜 사태 불러들였다”“S Korea slams high tuition costs”““정치가 여론 양극화 부채질… 합리주의 절실””“〈"`촛불집회'는 민주주의의 질적 변화 상징"〉”““촛불집회가 민주주의 왜곡 초래””“국민 65%, "한국 노사관계 대립적"”“한국 국가경쟁력 27위‥노사관계 '꼴찌'”“제대로 형성되지 않은 대한민국 이념지형”“[신년기획-갈등의 시대] 갈등지수 OECD 4위…사회적 손실 GDP 27% 무려 300조”“2012 총선-대선의 키워드는 '국민과 소통'”“한국 삶의 질 27위, 2000년과 2008년 연속 하위권 머물러”“[해피 코리아] 행복점수 68점…해외 평가선 '낙제점'”“한국 어린이·청소년 행복지수 3년 연속 OECD ‘꼴찌’”“한국 이혼율 OECD중 8위”“[통계청] 한국 이혼율 OECD 4위”“오피니언 [이렇게 생각한다] `부부의 날` 에 돌아본 이혼율 1위 한국”“Suicide Rates by Country, Global Health Observatory Data Repository.”“1. 또 다른 차별”“오피니언 [편집자에게] '왕따'와 '패거리 정치' 심리는 닮은꼴”“[미래한국리포트] 무한경쟁에 빠진 대한민국”“대학생 98% "외모가 경쟁력이라는 말 동의"”“특급호텔 웨딩·200만원대 유모차… "남보다 더…" 호화病, 고질병 됐다”“[스트레스 공화국] ① 경쟁사회, 스트레스 쌓인다”““매일 30여명 자살 한국, 의사보다 무속인에…””“"자살 부르는 '우울증', 환자 중 85% 치료 안 받아"”“정신병원을 가다”“대한민국도 ‘묻지마 범죄’,안전지대 아니다”“유엔 "학생 '성적 지향'에 따른 차별 금지하라"”“유엔아동권리위원회 보고서 및 번역본 원문”“고졸 성공스토리 담은 '제빵왕 김탁구' 드라마 나온다”“‘빛 좋은 개살구’ 고졸 취업…실습 대신 착취”원본 문서“정신건강, 사회적 편견부터 고쳐드립니다”‘소통’과 ‘행복’에 목 마른 사회가 잠들어 있던 ‘심리학’ 깨웠다“[포토] 사유리-곽금주 교수의 유쾌한 심리상담”“"올해 한국인 평균 영화관람횟수 세계 1위"(종합)”“[게임연중기획] 게임은 문화다-여가활동 1순위 게임”“영화속 ‘영어 지상주의’ …“왠지 씁쓸한데””“2월 `신문 부수 인증기관` 지정..방송법 후속작업”“무료신문 성장동력 ‘차별성’과 ‘갈등해소’”대한민국 국회 법률지식정보시스템"Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project: South Korea"“amp;vwcd=MT_ZTITLE&path=인구·가구%20>%20인구총조사%20>%20인구부문%20>%20 총조사인구(2005)%20>%20전수부문&oper_YN=Y&item=&keyword=종교별%20인구& amp;lang_mode=kor&list_id= 2005년 통계청 인구 총조사”원본 문서“한국인이 좋아하는 취미와 운동 (2004-2009)”“한국인이 좋아하는 취미와 운동 (2004-2014)”Archived“한국, `부분적 언론자유국' 강등〈프리덤하우스〉”“국경없는기자회 "한국, 인터넷감시 대상국"”“한국, 조선산업 1위 유지(S. Korea Stays Top Shipbuilding Nation) RZD-Partner Portal”원본 문서“한국, 4년 만에 ‘선박건조 1위’”“옛 마산시,인터넷속도 세계 1위”“"한국 초고속 인터넷망 세계1위"”“인터넷·휴대폰 요금, 외국보다 훨씬 비싸”“한국 관세행정 6년 연속 세계 '1위'”“한국 교통사고 사망자 수 OECD 회원국 중 2위”“결핵 후진국' 한국, 환자가 급증한 이유는”“수술은 신중해야… 자칫하면 생명 위협”대한민국분류대한민국의 지도대한민국 정부대표 다국어포털대한민국 전자정부대한민국 국회한국방송공사about korea and information korea브리태니커 백과사전(한국편)론리플래닛의 정보(한국편)CIA의 세계 정보(한국편)마리암 부디아 (Mariam Budia),『한국: 하늘이 내린 한 폭의 그림』, 서울: 트랜스라틴 19호 (2012년 3월)대한민국ehehehehehehehehehehehehehehWorldCat132441370n791268020000 0001 2308 81034078029-6026373548cb11863345f(데이터)00573706ge128495