Talk:Darweesh v. Trump

Plaintiffs

Probably want to mention who Darweesh and the other plaintiff, Alshawi, are.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Sources Aziz v. Trump

I cannot find sources for this document. Please help locate sources. Case No. 1:17-cv-116 - similar restraining order issued by United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Judge Leonie Brinkema. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

found this one. [1] [2] Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Bloomberg article mentions both cases. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 07:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Made a new article Aziz v. Trump. Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Petition copyright status

Several documents pertaining to the case have been uploaded at commons:Category:Darweesh v. Trump with the claim they are public domain as "a work of a United States federal court, taken or made as part of that person's official duties." However, that would only seem to apply to the rulings, and not to the petitions that were written by the petitioners' layers. Could someone clarify the copyright status of these documents? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 07:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legal documents become public when they are filed, unless placed under seal or stipulated to be covered by a protective order. Documents covered by a protective order are usually not available from the Court. Documents related to divorce, adoption, or trade secret materials are often subject to a protective order. Quoting legal documents is unquestionably one of the highest forms of free speech. Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summons, Petitions, Motions, and Orders are all public -- usually production requests or requests for admissions can be sealed, but these documents would not be available from the court. There would be an entry on the Court docket for the filing but the Court clerk would not allow copies to be distributed for those particular documents. Octoberwoodland (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether they're available to be publicly accessed and read—it's a question about their copyright status. A document can be publicly available but still encumbered by copyright. I don't know whether the act of submitting a petition to a court extinguishes the copyright on it, or merely grants some kind of license for the court to publish it. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 08:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antony-22 and Octoberwoodland, I don't want to opine on this issue, but see this article by Eugene Volokh, which discusses the copyright status of appellate briefs filed in court. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what's in that is nonsense. Court briefs are not subject to copyright claims. They are controlled by Civil Rules of Procedure, not copyright law, and you waive copyright when you file them. Octoberwoodland (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If for some reason you have to file a copyrighted work as an exhibit, it is either placed under seal of the Court, or a protective order is issued restricting distribution to only the parties to a lawsuit and their attorneys. Octoberwoodland (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This part is somewhat accurate, "Note that there is a statutory provision that says works of the federal government are free of copyright, which includes federal court opinions; and there is longstanding caselaw that says state court opinions are free of copyright. ...." Octoberwoodland (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Octoberwoodland, I have three quick points. First, public availability/accessability and copyright protection are separate issues. Second, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (if that's what you mean by "Civil Rules of Procedure") do not address whether pleadings are subject to copyright law. Third, you may be interested in this article about a recent case from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where the defendant was found liable for copyright infringement for copying significant portions of an appellate brief. See also Stanley F. Birch Jr., Copyright Protection for Attorney Work Product: Practical and Ethical Considerations, 10 J. Intell. Prop. L. 255 (2003). Cf. Unclaimed Prop. Recovery Serv., Inc. v. Kaplan, 734 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2013) ("Our decision today is based on the particularities of the facts before us. We do not decide whether legal pleadings or other legal documents are subject to copyright law."). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like hair splitting exercises. I am unaware of any legal theories regarding claims to copyright of pleadings in a court of law. I will read over these sources but I am unaware of anyone successfully claiming copyright on court documents, but hey, I could be wrong. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]