 | This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
| County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | California Court of Appeal, Sixth District |
| Full case name | County of Santa Clara, et al. v. The Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California First Amendment Coalition |
| Citations | 170 Cal. App. 4th 1301 89 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374 |
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | Santa Clara County Superior Court |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Richard J. McAdams,Franklin D. Elia,Nathan D. Mihara |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | McAdams |
| Laws applied | |
| California Public Records Act | |
County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition, 170 Cal. App. 4th 1301 (2009), was a case before theCalifornia Courts of Appeal dealing with the ability of a local California agency to limit the disclosure of, or requirelicense agreements for, public records and data requested under theCalifornia Public Records Act (CPRA).
The court found that as public records, there was "no statutory basis either for copyrighting the GIS basemap or for conditioning its release on a licensing agreement" underUnited States copyright law because state freedom of information laws preclude a state agency’s reliance on federal copyright unless state law specifically permits it.[1]
The case dealt with apublic records request by theCalifornia First Amendment Coalition forGIS "basemap" data held bySanta Clara County, California. The trial court concluded that the county must release the records and could not place any restrictions on their use. The county then appealed to the California Courts of Appeal, which upheld the lower court's decision, and published its opinion. The county also unsuccessfully attempted to have the opiniondepublished by theSupreme Court of California.
The county made three arguments. The county claimed the records were "protected critical infrastructure information" and exempted from release by the federalCritical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002, that disclosure was exempted under the CPRA under the "catch all" exemption, and that it had a federal copyright in the basemap, arguing that copyright protection authorized the county to condition release of records, under freedom of information laws like the CPRA, with restrictions on the requester’s use of the records or sharing of the records with others.
The court rejected each of the county's arguments:
