Awhile ago, when some of the bills were starting to be introduced in XML, the Congress decided to add in some Dublin Core metadata so that issues such as rights would be made clear. See below.

And then there is the presumption that anyone or organization that publishes raw data in an open and without real applications is intending for the data to be either used in place or copied. This is like having an RSS newsfeed and then claiming that the RSS newsfeed itself is copyrighted.

And then there is the issue of how data is used on the Internet with search engines essentially having a complete copy of almost everything internally in order to allow for search.   Hmmmmmm.

<metadata xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<dublinCore>
<dc:title>111 HR 11 IH: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of
</dc:title>
<dc:publisher>U.S. House of Representatives</dc:publisher>
<dc:date>2009-01-06</dc:date>
<dc:format>text/xml</dc:format>
<dc:language>EN</dc:language>
<dc:rights>Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.</dc:rights>
</dublinCore>
</metadata>
 Daniel



Jonathan Gray wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Acar, Suzanne<Suzanne.Acar@ic.fbi.gov> wrote:
  
US data.gov published a policy statement on the site.  Copyright statement was not needed because government data once released for sharing is public domain.
    

While this is true for US Federal government material - this is
unfortunately not so clear outside the US.

In my experience of looking at the situation with data across Europe,
many government sites do not explicitly state what can and can't be
re-used. The EU PSI Directive broadly encourages member states to make
material available for re-use - but this is still being implemented,
and some feel there is ambiguity about its scope and strength. Also
its always helpful to know where rights are held by third parties!