Main Content
Washington, D.C.
Copyright Status: Yellow
Openness Score: -0.40
What is the law?
Binding, on-point law (about)
None
Advisory sources (about)
None
Public records law (about)
The D.C. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was first enacted in 1968 and may be found at D.C. Code § 2-531.
Related law (about)
D.C. courts have held that agencies cannot impose greater restrictions on records than are explicitly included in the D.C. Freedom of Information Act. Dunhill v. Dir., D.C. Dep't of Transp., 416 A.2d 244, 248 (D.C. 1980). Since the Freedom of Information Act does not restrict records disclosure based on copyright, this may mean that D.C. agencies may not use copyright law to restrict access to public records. However, the issue has not yet appeared before a D.C. court. See Ashley Messenger, Dennis Pitman, Can States Use Copyright to Restrict the Use of Public Records?, Comm. Law., February 2013, at 4, 7.
Does the public records law restrict the use of disclosed records?
The D.C. FOIA does not restrict the use of disclosed records, including for commercial use. Dunhill v. Dir., D.C. Dep't of Transp., 416 A.2d 244 (D.C. 1980). The purpose of a request may be considered in order to evaluate the applicability of possible exceptions to the law, however. Emily Yinger, Esq. v. Metro. Police Dep't, FOIA App. No. 93-25 (Office of the Mayor, Oct. 5, 1994) (weighing "private" purpose of requestor for § 2-534(a)(2) privacy exemption); accord Velrey Props. Inc. v. Dep't of Human Servs., FOIA App. No. 94-45 (Office of the Mayor, May 17, 1995); Gustavo Viteri v. District Dep't of Transportation, FOIA App. No. 2011-32 (Office of the Mayor, June 22, 2011). Additionally, the purpose and intended use of a record may affect the fees charged for a records request. D.C. Code § 2-532(b) (records used to benefit the public interest are eligible for fee waivers); D.C. Code § 2-532(b-1)(2) (fees limited to "reasonable standard charges" when "not sought for commercial use and the request is made by an educational or non-commercial scientific institution for scholarly or scientific research, or a representative of the news media").
Specifics and examples (about)
Status | Applies to... | Based on? |
---|---|---|
Copyright asserted by district | District of Columbia Official code [1] | See, e.g. D.C. Code § 28-3904 |
Copyright asserted by department | Publications of Cultural Tourism DC | See, e.g. African American Heritage Trail |
Public domain asserted by department | Publications of the DC Mayor's office on Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs | See, e.g. Asian American and Pacific Islander Community Grant Annual Report, FY2011 |
Additional things to consider (about)
Under D.C. law, "[t]he Corporation Counsel is authorized to initiate a civil action in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or any court of competent jurisdiction to protect the interests of the District of Columbia in any public record." D.C. Code § 2-1713.
Where else to go
-
District of Columbia, Freedom of Information Act, available at http://dc.gov/page/freedom-information-act-foia.
-
Board of Ethics and Government Accountability, Office of Open Government, available at http://www.bega-dc.gov/office-open-government.
-
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Open Government Guide: Access to Public Records and Meetings in the District of Columbia, available at http://www.rcfp.org/rcfp/orders/docs/ogg/DC.pdf.
-
District of Columbia Archives, available at http://os.dc.gov/service/district-columbia-archives.
Bibliography
Cases
- Dunhill v. Dir., D.C. Dep't of Transp., 416 A.2d 244, 248 (D.C. 1980), available at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8545571485149496002.
Statutes
-
D.C. Code § 2-531.
-
D.C. Code § 2-532.
Mayor's Office FOIA appeals decisions
-
Emily Yinger, Esq. v. Metro. Police Dep't, FOIA App. No. 93-25 (Office of the Mayor, Oct. 5, 1994)
-
Velrey Props. Inc. v. Dep't of Human Servs., FOIA App. No. 94-45 (Office of the Mayor, May 17, 1995)
-
Gustavo Viteri v. District Dep't of Transportation, FOIA App. No. 2011-32 (Office of the Mayor, June 22, 2011), available at http://services.dc.gov/DC/Government/Publication%20Files/2011FOIA/201132.pdf.
Other
-
Ashley Messenger, Dennis Pitman, Can States Use Copyright to Restrict the Use of Public Records?, Comm. Law., February 2013, available at http://www.americanbar.org/publications/communications_lawyer/2013/february/can_states_use_copyright_restrict_use_public_records.html.
-
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Open Government Guide: Access to Public Records and Meetings in the District of Columbia, available at http://www.rcfp.org/rcfp/orders/docs/ogg/DC.pdf.
-
D.C. Code § 28-3904, available at http://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oag/publication/attachments/28-3904%20-%20unlawful%20trade%20practices.pdf.
-
African American Heritage Trail, available at http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/Planning%20Publication%20Files/OP/HP/Community%20Heritage%20PDF%20Files/African%20American%20Heritage%20Trail%20Brochure.pdf.
-
Asian American and Pacific Islander Community Grant Annual Report, FY2011, available at http://apia.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/apia/publication/attachments/fy11_asian_american_and_pacific_islander_community_grant_annual_report.pdf.
Footnotes
- [1] Judicial opinions cannot be copyrighted. The Supreme Court in Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 9 S. Ct. 36, 32 L. Ed. 425 (1888) invalidated an asserted copyright by a private publisher, an Ohio citizen, for copyright in the state court reports, holding that any content written by a judge cannot be copyrighted because "[t]he whole work done by the judges constitutes the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all, whether it is a declaration of unwritten law, or an interpretation of a constitution or a statute." See also Nash v. Lathrop, 142 Mass. 29, 35, 6 N.E. 559, 560 (1886) and Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 591, 668, 8 L. Ed. 1055 (1834). Only materials ancillary to the court opinion such as the "title-page, table of cases, head notes, statements of facts, arguments of counsel, and index" may be copyrighted. Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U.S. 617, 649, 9 S. Ct. 177, 185, 32 L. Ed. 547 (1888).