As a non-US person, what license may I have to use public materials from agencies of US government? I want to reuse a gif published in this website of this US government agency. I don't see any copyright statement anywhere, except a link to Freedom of Information Act. In my vague understanding of this, it doesn't seem to say anything about having license of reusing public material on my purpose, but just about requesting to access such material. So, if I'm a non-US person and wanting to reusing a material from a agency of US government, what license may I have?
17 USC 105 provides that: (a) In General.—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. Under 17 USC 101: A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties. However under 17 USC 105 (b): Subject to subsection (c), the covered author of a covered work owns the copyright to that covered work. The definitions section of section 105 provides that &quot;covered authors &quot; are faculty members at any of 12 specified institutes, academies, colleges, and universities run by the Federal Government, and &quot;covered works&quot; are any textual works created by covered authors. Thus to be free of copyright under section 105, a work must have been created by &quot;an officer or employee of the United States Federal Government as part of that person’s official duties.&quot; and not by a faculty member at any of the institutions listed in 105 (d). 17 USC 105 does not apply to works by the various US state governments, nor to contractors hired by the US Federal government. Works that are free of copyright under section 105 are in the public domain under US law, and may lawfully be used in any way at all, but it is widely considered unethical, although not unlawful, to fail to credit the source of such works, or indeed of older works long out of copyright protection. Note that such works could be protected under the laws of other countries, and such copyrights may apply outside the US. Just because an image or text is published by a US government agency does not waive copyright, nor does the absence of a copyright notice. (Under the Berne Convention a copyright notice cannot be required for protection, and US law implements this in 17 USC 401 (a) which provides that a notice may be present.) The web page linked in the question above includes the statement: Video contributed by Dr. Marcelo Saba, National Institute for Space Research, Brazil This strongly implies that Dr Saba owns the copyright, although it does not prove that. It might be owned by the Institute, or some other employee of the Institute. But Dr Saba could probably indicate who does own the copyright, and on what terms if any the image may be used. When content is protected by copyright, a license to reproduce that content must normally be explicitly stated. The US Freedom of Information Act (FoI) has nothing to do with providing such licenses. It does not matter under US law whether the person wanting to reuse content is a citizen or resident of the US or not, the rules are the same for all. However, US government works may be protected outside the US. It is the location of use, not the nationality of the person using them, that will matter.
Basically, you cannot do it. You are required to include the MIT license in any derivative work. However, that holds only for the parts that you import from this other project. You can identify which parts of the final product are copied from the MIT-licensed program (and indicate "these parts are subject to the following MIT license"), and then you can do whatever you want with the remainder that you wrote. The downside of not licensing your material is that nobody can use it. To use it, people would need permission, which is what a license is. If you don't license it, you don't give permission, so people can't use it. You presumably want to subject your own contribution to different licensing conditions, so then you would state those conditions and clearly indicate what parts of the code you wrote.
No, you cannot ever legally use copyrighted property without a valid license from the copyright owner. It is understandable that when government restrictions prevent people from licensing intellectual property, people will turn to piracy and black markets to obtain them. However, whenever you find yourself in a region where you can legally license the property, you are (presumably) also in a region where intellectual property rights are respected, and it is illegal to use the property without a proper license from the owner. I.e., the fact that you paid a pirate for a copy – even where that was the only option to obtain one – does not give you a license. You have to obtain a license from the owner.
If you create a new work that is derived from or based on someone else's work, it is a derivative work, and you cannot do so without permission from the original copyright holder. If the original work is made available under a CC-BY_SA 4.0 license, you have permission, but it comes with conditions. One of those is that you must attribute the original work -- you must say what work yours is based on and who created it. Another is that you must license your own derived work under the same CC-BY-SA license (or a compatible one). This does not mean that your work is not copyrighted -- it is. But it does mean that you must grant to others the same rights that the creator of the work you used granted to you. That is what the "share alike" or SA part of the license means. if you don't like that, you should not use a work licensed under CC-BY-SA terms to create your own work. If you publish your work but fail to grant that license to others, you are infringing the copyright of the work you used, and could be sued. Note that if you had created a compilation rather than a derived work -- for example if you created an album of images from various sources, some of them under CC-BY-SA licenses, you would retain a copyright on the collection as a whole, and that would not have to be under CC-BY-SA. But in this case you say that you used the other person's image as a background for your own illustration. That is creating an "adapted" or derivative work, i am fairly sure, and invokes the share alike clause of the license. You might also want to consider the different case mentioned in If I include an unmodified CC-BY-SA work in a book, does the whole book have to be CC-BY-SA?
Their code, their rules A copyright holder is free to offer their work under none, one or many licences. They can, at the same time, use their own work however they see fit without regard to the licences they have given/sold to others (except, they can only give one person an exclusive licence). As an analogy, let’s say I own a fleet of cars. I can drive my cars anytime I want. I can let Jim drive my cars anytime he wants for free. I can let Mary drive a specific car on Thursdays and only within 10km of the depot. I can let Joe drive my cars providing he pays me $50 a day. And I’m not going to let Fred drive them at all because Fred’s a jerk. Each of those is a different licence.
may require that you obtain license rights from third-party owners or licensors of content that you include in your text inputs (Emphasis mine). Based solely on the excerpt above, yes, you have the copyright on the audio files if you created the source material, as you are the creator, using Amazon Polly as/to generate a "tangible medium". One of the central rights granted by copyright is to control translation into a different medium (in this case, from text into audio), as is the right to control distribution, which is what this excerpt is talking about. "Third party" in this case means neither you nor Amazon. Basically, Amazon is informing you that using their software on someone else's copyrighted material does not grant you copyright on the audio recording.
Choice 2 is what the writers of the license have in mind. You own the physical media on which the copy is delivered, such as a DVD or floppy disk (if there was physical media). But you do not own the copy of the software, you merely have purchased a license to use it, which may be revocable under specified circumstances. This is different from the law in the case of a book. Why you buy a book, you own a copy of the book, although you do not own the copyright to the book, and may not make additional copies. The license model was adopted by commercial software distributors for several reasons, but largely to avoid the "first sale doctrine". When you buy a copy of a copyrighted work, you have the right (under US law at least) to lend, rent, sell, or give-away that copy. You do not need the permission of the copyright holder to do any of these. Those in the commercial software business did not want customers to be able to do those things legally. By making the software subject to a license, which is a contract, they could write that license to restrict or prohibit those rights. Sellers also wanted to prohibit reverse engineering of the software, and to restrict use of the software. (For example, to limit the user to installing it on a single computer.) There was at first much dispute over the enforcability of such license agreements. But most US courts now accept them as valid and enforceable, and copyright law has been modified to take account of them. Specifically, 17 USC 109 (2)(b)(1)(A) seems to include a legislative acceptance of this rule.
Yet I publicly wear shirts with copyrighted designs all the time. I'm unclear about this; do you mean T-shirts you have made yourself using copyrighted images or T-shirts you have bought? If the former then it is a prima facie breach and you could be sued by the copyright holder. You would probably not be as it would be impracticable. If the latter then there are 2 possibilities: The manufacturer/distributer/retailer chain all hold valid licences to put the image on a T-shirt and display it in the usual way so there is no breach involved. The manufacturer/distributer/retailer chain does not hold a valid licence in which case there is a breach and the copyright holder would target, say Wall-Mart rather than you. what about displaying ... works of art in my yard? Notwithstanding that it can be viewed from a public space, your yard is not public; therefore this is not public display.