Can the United States Government Steal Your Intellectual Property?

The internet provides opportunities for creative expression and abuse of creative property rights. Copyright laws and fair use policy are constantly violated by those that do not understand and unfortunately many that do understand the rules. Fair use appears to be judicially legally vague for a good reason. The vagueness affords judges more leeway so the ignorant are less likely to be unfairly punished. So ignorance of the law is a little bit of an excuse when it comes to violation of fair use of intellectual property. "Oops, sorry! I'll take it down or provide a link back", is all that is required to correct most violations of fair use, which is a good thing since it does not stifle creativity of new comers to writing. There are violations that need to be more firmly addressed where those violations tend to stifle creative uses of the internet. One interesting example is in academia, what defines copyright protected data?

The particular case I am referring to has been resolved by both parties. I am using it only because it is a unique case of something the should be clarified before real damage is done. Data collections can be freely used by other researchers with just a reference to the original source. Graphics or charts created from the data require prior approval from the creator before republication and proper attribution with publication. All data though is not created equally.

Anthony Watts, a semi-retired meteorologists started a website called surfacestation.org. The intent of the website was to record a pictorial survey of weather stations in the United States to determine if their condition and placement created potential errors that could effect weather forecasts and potentially climate forecasts. Climate forecasts are used to predict global warming or as it is known now, climate disruption. Mr. Watts posted and maintained a current copyright on his site and specifically stated his intent of the survey was to publish a report on the state of the United States surface weather stations. Prior to the completion of his survey and the publishing of his report, scientists employed by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) used his data without permission and published a report similar to the one he indicated he intended to publish.

Any author, photographer, musician or artist of any ilk would have freaked out at the government stealing their intellectual property. Mr. Watts expressed his displeasure and the report was changed to include attribution to him and his site. With that, Mr. Watts dropped the subject even though his plans to publish an original report were dashed. The survey remains incomplete and traffic to his site has dropped because of the violation of his intellectual property rights.

There remains a perception in academia that data is data so the same thing can happen again including, "He [Watts] should have had more common sense than to publish data he intended to use online." So who is right?

The "data" in this case, being a compilation of photographs, should have had typical fair use privileges afforded all photographs. So Watts who had rights to the photographs and the photographers that had copyrights to the photographs should have been acknowledged before hand. Watts could have denied rights since he intended to use the survey to publish his own work. That is why he had a copyright for the site, he intended to use the contents himself. Additionally, his concept of an internet based grass roots survey of weather stations could be considered original, further strengthening his legal protection under copyright laws.

There are situations where the government can take possession of private property. In virtually all cases the individual is notified and compensated for his loss. Because of the misinterpretation of copyright laws by scientists at NCDC, that did not happen.

The most troubling aspect of this situation is that other government employees still do not understand that Mr. Watts' rights were violated to the point that some think Watts is a idiot (lacks common sense) to think copyright law protects his intellectual property.

So does the United State government have the right to violate your copyright and steal your intellectually property without notification and compensation? Follow the links yourself if you wish to verify my concern.

UPDATE: Since they Yahoo editors haven't freaked out, here is the name of the NASA GISS scientist that said Watts should have enough common sense to not to post copyright data if he plans to use it. It was Gavin Schmidt. I double checked to make sure he understood that photographs are not typical data and that copyright DOES protect intellectual property. Watts is due a public apology for his comments.

Since Watts and NOAA came to terms the NOAA employees are not named. They are in the link provided that details Watts struggle with NCDC. The NCDC employees assumed that the copyright pictorial survey was just data when it not just generic data that has no copyright protection. BTW, the links should now work.

To clarify the issue, private individuals that use the internet to compile a database can not, in the opinion of some NASA employees, expect their database to be protected under fair use and copyright laws. In the example mentioned, NCDC employees on more than one occasion used Mr. Watts' database against his protestations See the link , How to Resolve Attribution Conflicts in Climate Science for an explanation of what Mr. Watts had to do to resolve his issue.

The most troubling aspect mentioned in the article above still exists. A private database can be used without consent of the copyright holder even if the copyright holder clearly states his intent to use the new database, for the first time, in a creative work. An anticipated right of first use of data is not addressed clearly, if at all, or NCDC and NASA employees would not have taken the actions and attitudes they have. That justifies the sensational language used in this article.

All data is not created equally. Original data may not be protected for first use, if published on the internet during the collection of the data, by anything other than common courtesy and ethics. First use of data of any type should be addressed by government agencies or the courts. Until it is, writers cannot expect copyright protection.

Any further clarifications will be continued in the comments section below.

This article has not been reviewed and is not endorsed by Yahoo Contributor, yet.