On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 03/07/2017 03:35 PM, David Morris wrote:
>>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_ the_U.S._government
>>
>> Well... one would still need to assess whether such work is official or
>> not. :-) At times, intelligence agency's work is not official --
>> actually, officially, such work didn't happen. :-)
>
> Yeah, leaked classified materials don't need a copyright for protection.
> One can go to jail with out ever getting a chance to discuss copyright
> status.
One should consider oneself lucky in that case ;-)
Cheers,
US law is rather interesting. Unlike UK law where it is not necessary to 'sign the official secrets act' to be covered by it, US civil law is rather less severe. Military law is a different matter, active duty military can be ordered to be careful with classified materials. Civil law requires intention to transmit to an unauthorized party or carelessness amounting to constructive intent.
The documents do include material that purports to be classified as secret. As a result many people are unable to read it because they have security clearances and can't comment.
There certainly isn't a need to be concerned about copyright status as the documents purport to be government property which would put them in the public domain if true.