Trump Transition Website Has Some Copyright Problems -- Both In Copying Content & In Claiming Copyright

from the make-plagiarism-great-again dept

Tue, Nov 15th 2016 2:40pm — Mike Masnick

By now, lots of people within the Donald Trump campaign have admitted that even they didn't really expect to win -- and thus they're scrambling to get things in order to actually, you know, run the damn country. That includes the transition website, GreatAgain.gov, which (to their credit) the Trump team did get up pretty quickly. Of course, some of the reason they were able to do that was, apparently, that they just copied a whole bunch of text from another website, Partnership for Public Service's Center for Presidential Transition. Now, that site is pretty good, and it's certainly topical, seeing as the whole project is designed to do exactly this: help Presidents transition power. But that doesn't mean that a campaign is just supposed to copy the website wholesale.

And, yet, the Trump campaign did exactly that. If the Center were so inclined, it could argue that this is pretty blatant copyright infringement (its website says that the content is covered by copyright, and it doesn't seem to use an open license like Creative Commons, even though it probably should). There is, at least, a strong argument of fair use here, given the nature of what's being done here -- but it's not exactly a slam dunk. Of course, it also leads to some oddities, because, in the rush to copy, the Trump campaign seems to have left in references to the Center itself or charts that weren't copied as well:

One post, titled "Help Wanted: 4,000 Presidential Appointments," refers to a "chart below" — but the version on Trump's site has no chart. On the center's website, those lines are followed by a detailed interactive graphic showing the positions requiring Senate confirmation in the departments of Justice and State.
Another page on Trump's site, titled "The Offices and Agencies Supporting the Transition," is exactly the same as a page on the nonprofit's site — including a reference to "our own Center library." Both versions link to the nonprofit's online resource.

On the nonprofit group's site, the two posts are accompanied by the name of the Partnership for Public Service staffer who wrote them. There is no such attribution on the Trump site.

But that's not the only copyright problem here. There's also the fact that GreatAgain.gov has its own copyright notice, in which it is using a Creative Commons license -- and specifically the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license, which is pretty permissive. But, of course, it can't actually claim copyright on the Center's material that it just up and copied.

And then there's the separate question of can the Trump transition team actually claim any copyright at all? After all, as we've discussed many times, works of the federal government are not subject to copyright protection. But... is the transition site a work of the federal government? That seems like a pretty big gray area, though there's a strong argument that it's not. Yes, the website is hosted on .gov, and everyone knows these people will be the federal government in a few months, they're not technically part of the federal government yet. And given that copyright law already allows the federal government to hold the copyright on works created by outside parties and then assigned to the federal government, it seems most likely that the transition team would be seen as outside the federal government for now.

Of course, it's unlikely that any of this will matter. The Center for Presidential Transition doesn't seem that concerned about the copying, and one hopes that there aren't going to be any issues concerning the copyright status of the transition website, but since there has basically been zero discussion at all about the new administration's position on copyright, watching how it handles these kinds of situations is important.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, donald trump, plagiarism, public domain, transition

23 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2016 @ 3:15pm

Does it really matter, except as another way to nitpick the guy that beat your candidate?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 15 Nov 2016 @ 3:18pm

Re:
It's not nitpicking.

It's an actual copyright issue.

Just because it belongs to a certain political party doesn't make it any less or any more of a copyright infringement.

You only call it nitpicking because it is your candidate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ACME GOVENMENT ESSENTIALS, 15 Nov 2016 @ 3:21pm

Keystone cops
could be an up side to all this
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spyder, 15 Nov 2016 @ 3:43pm

Re: Re:
Next up on Snopes - is Techdirt biased? (insert left and right wing bias claims from readers here)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 15 Nov 2016 @ 3:45pm

Re:
Currently it's a minor but embarrassing goof on their part, getting caught red-handed like this blatantly copying from another site for theirs. Depending on where they go from here however it might be a bit more than that.

If for example Trump buys into the maximalist idea of 'The only fair use is paid use' and/or starts going on about how important copyright is and how violations of it need to be harshly punished then it becomes just a tad bit hypocritical to do something like this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oninoshiko (profile), 15 Nov 2016 @ 4:12pm

Re:
Even you accept that copying in this instance is okay, turning around and claiming you have copyright on it is not.

There's no two bones about it; when the little people get the book tossed at them harder than rape for making an image which is vaguely similar to another, the ruling elite shouldn't get off with a slap on the wrist for it. Not the left, right, or middle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2016 @ 4:25pm

Re:
Yes, because that is all it is .. all this bad mouthing the guy is just jealousy, there is nothing wrong with what he says and does - just some folk will complain about anything.
amirite?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2016 @ 4:27pm

Re: Re:
Nobody seems to mention that the posts all have attribution, and that the site has a copyright notice that says "unless otherwise noted...". The .gov site does not appear to be claiming copyright on that material.

Posted on Facebook, this might be labeled as fake news.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2016 @ 4:49pm

"lots of people within the Donald Trump campaign have admitted that even they didn't really expect to win"

You know what is even funnier? Hillary bought fireworks for her victory party. You know, the one she didn't have and will never have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2016 @ 4:53pm

Re: Re: Re:
Look, you are expecting the left to do real fact checking before rushing to the press. Mike appears to be really pissed off about the results. He seemed to try to appear unbiased before the election but now that it is over he is seizing on everything he can. But the Repubs keep on winning:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-los t-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2016 @ 5:22pm

Copyright issues aside, this seems to be a clear case of plagiarism. And for many people, that's even worse -- if not legally, then definitely ethically. Seeing someone else try to claim your work as being there own is a feeling few can comprehend until they experience it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2016 @ 5:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, this tame piece about the minutiae of government copyrights and creative commons licenses displays just how pissed Mike truly is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
frank87 (profile), 15 Nov 2016 @ 11:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's missing the important stuff: Trump is using a CC licence.
That's news because everyone is curious about his views on copyright. His team is sharing and caring...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
timmaguire42 (profile), 16 Nov 2016 @ 4:51am

I refute you thus:
"There is, at least, a strong argument of fair use here"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2016 @ 6:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's such an interesting link - I have seen this one before, as a matter of fact.

A genius on this thread shreds Politifact's policy of (gasp!) asking for sources of Trump's statistical information:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161113/00431436029/let-them-eat-facts-why-fact-chec king-is-mostly-useless-convincing-voters.shtml#c575

So please - in terms of fact checking - can you Trump supporters tell me something - do you only agree with the results of Politifact when it benefits Trump?

Or should we look at this 900 seat quote link and call bullshit because Politifact lacks integrity?

Which is it folks?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2016 @ 6:28am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently, it depends upon how it makes them look.

Does this Politifact article make my platform look phat?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2016 @ 8:12am

At least it uses HTTPS, with a certificate from Symantec Corporation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2016 @ 9:01am

One hopes that eventually Trump and Co. will copy the clue server. And login to it. Last part is critical.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard Bennett (profile), 16 Nov 2016 @ 11:52am

Great post
This is why I read TechDirt: nobody else has the nerve to stand up to The Donald on an issue as important as this one. Great work, Master Masnick.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 17 Nov 2016 @ 2:56pm

Re: I refute you thus:
I didn't say it WAS a copyright infringement. It is a copyright issue. The kind of topic TD covers. And whether or not it is an infringement, it isn't any more or less so based on which candidate is doing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 18 Nov 2016 @ 2:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where "left" = people who disagree with AC @ 4:53pm

Go and learn what words mean.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 18 Nov 2016 @ 2:24am

Re:
In his interview with 60 Minutes Trump said the Clintons are good people and he doesn't want to hurt them. In light of this comment do you think Hillary will give her fireworks to Trump as a gesture of goodwill?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 18 Nov 2016 @ 2:29am

Re:
It's not the first time they've been caught doing that but it's indicative of the broader problem we are all expecting to encounter down the line: one rule for us, another for them.

And apparently Trump is as keen on IPR as private property as Clinton so I'm a) laughing at the hypocrisy here and b) worried that he'll allow himself to be influenced by the USTR into making copyright terms longer and enforcement more harsh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]