Comments:Obama's transition website 'frees the content'

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

He chose the less restrictive Creative Commons license. Such choices should be done much more by every people. It's great! Diti (talk to the penguin) 16:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Awesome :) 16:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Publicity stunt! It should be PD!Edit

Obama has a federal budget for his transition team, making the members of the team federal employees. As such, anything they produce should be Public Domain per the copyright status of work by the U.S. government. And Wikinews fell for it, hook line and sinker. Obama's own campaign manager couldn't have written anything more glorifying of Obama than this fluff piece. -- 18:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be quite so harsh - it's valuable insofar as CC-BY applies to comments and submissions. But if they get federal funding, I believe you're right that it should be PD. I just blogged on this, but wasn't sure whether they were federal employees yet: Obama, transition and public domain. --Chriswaterguy (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
No, they are not federal employees. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes they are! See -- 18:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
PROVIDED the administrator (Obama) wants it as such. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Where do you get the notion that Obama is entitled to degrade Title 15 of the United States Code? -- 19:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Says copy-right...He, and anything authorized by him, has the right to be copyrighted to the highest level as he sees fit. He is the author of said material so he can do what he wants with it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
You obviously don't understand the law covering federal employees. Please read copyright status of work by the U.S. government if you are interested in learning. -- 20:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
You do not understand. If he write a letter to someone, then its HIS work. He can release it as such, or not at all, regardless of what he is an employee of. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
We're not talking about a personal letter - we're talking about work that is done as part of their jobs with the federal govt. At face value, that makes it public domain. I'm not aware of any relevant exceptions, though I may be missing something. --Chriswaterguy (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what they're saying is that if the website is federally funded, then it is federal property. If DC Comics pays you to draw Batman, they also have you sign an agreement saying that they own your drawing of Batman when it's finished. Same concept, except here it's a pre-established legal matter that as a federally funded employee, his official work will be public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I recall some mention that Obama was looking to do additional funding to pay for the transition process (some joke about looking for the same amount as the WMF fundraiser), so it may not be as straightforward as saying, "the taxpayer is footing the bill, it should be PD".
In any case, my personal opinion is that this CC license has some advantages over 'naked' PD. Anyone reusing your content must say where they got it, which means that, although they could use a non-derivative license on their material, you'd still get told the original source so you could make a competing work. With PD there is no need to credit the source, so you can be left with something closed off that you have no clue on what material you may make use of. Of course, the obvious examples like NASA generally get credit as the photos and other goodies they release are the news item. However, there's nothing to stop you making up a website with loads of the PD Hubble photos and simply not bother saying where you got them.
One point also to note is that this impacts their discussions. They're saying, "you post here, it's CC-BY", I don't know if any of the other .gov sites that have blogs and so apply such terms to members of the public. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
In that case you should check the USA Gov blog. But there are also other's. The TSA has a blog as does the Library of Congress. There are probably many others. As an interesting tidbit, both NASA and the GSA have sites that are wiki-like collaborative environments. -- 13:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Let's end this, shall we?
Quote is not run by the federal government, but by the Obama-Biden Transition Project, a 501(c)4 non-profit organization. Its content is not in the public domain. --+Deprifry+ 12:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
--Brian McNeil / talk 14:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I was just going to add this reliable source which says this about transition teams: "These teams are provided for in law (3 U.S.C. 102) and are supported by appropriated funds, although they are not federal agencies." That basically proves that "" is not a federal agency or a website thereof. Assuming that the people who work there are paid by the team and not directly by the government (a reasonable assumption) this should bypass 15 U.S.C. § 290e and the work may not necessarily be PD. --SVTCobra 15:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Open debates?Edit

Since when does either party support 'Open Debates.'

Third party candidates were threatened with arrest if they merely approached the vicinity of the presidential debates.

What a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


For the two years leading up to the November 4, 2008 election candidates spoke of the need for special interest / lobbyists to no longer get benefits in Washington on Capitol Hill and that is was time to give the American people access where they had been denied before. This step by the Obama/Biden transition team shows that actions and words can go hand and hand if candidates stick to their promises. Before watching this past campaign, it was hard to even find my political pulse because I had just about written off Washington politics. All it was to me was members of the elite and well to do throwing around their political influence. The huge disconnect was how their decisions would affect the American public and other dealings around the world. The US spent alot of time and energy building itself up into the shining example of leadership, honor, courage and fortitude around the globe throughout history and with the misguided decisions of a select few, that respect and admiration disappeared.

President-Elect Obama, you have my ear back and I will be watching closely because it all sounded inspiring and good when you wanted to win over the American people. Now its your time and your job to put us back into the status we once owned.

-Brett Wallette —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This is welcome news. for a long time we have heard American presidents talk about democracy and trnsparence without realy seeing that materialising. With this new happening, we are going to see a lot of innovative ideas brought to the attention of the powers that be. All that needs to be said now is congraturations Obama for your unfettered courage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mwakanabuyanda (talkcontribs)