Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />o <br />.-4 <br />~ <br />.-4 <br /> <br />A Study of GIS far the Colorado Department af Natural Resources <br /> <br />Octabe, 9. 1992 <br /> <br />waive this immunity, CRS 24-10-104 provides the approval for doing so. If these parties <br />wish to retain their immunity, they should be exceedingly careful to avoid any actions <br />which could be construed as waivers. <br /> <br />Exposure to liability might be part of the course of conduct that would allow DNR to <br />establish its control over access and allow cost recovery. Rccognition of potential liability <br />for selling and marketing products of an agency GIS is essential to understanding the legal <br />environment that such a GIS would operate in. However, actual liability is a long way <br />from exposure to potential liability. So long as the operation of a departmental GIS relative <br />to its sale of products is reasonable, and the department is careful not to oversell the <br />accuracy and appropriate use of a particular information product, the governmental <br />immunity defense should be adequate. Also, the department should defme the limits of due <br />care and justified reliance through written disclaimers to avoid actual liability if the <br />governmental immunity is held to be inappropriate, for whatever reason, at some point in <br />the future. DNR should examine each category of product and draft disclaimer language <br />expressly for it It is recommended that disclaimers on products that might be subject to the <br />UCC and hold hannless provisions in licenses or service contracts be used to limit any risk <br />exposure. Examples of such licenses, contracts and map disclaimers are included in. <br />Appendix I. <br /> <br />COPYRIGHT LAW AS APPLIED TO DATABASES <br /> <br />A full treatment of copyright issues that may be applicable to the dissemination of GIS <br />products and services by DNR is beyond the scope of this repon. A detailed explanation <br />regarding the law of copyright of facts and compilations of facts and information which <br />come from disparate sources, as well as the interplay of copyright and open records law, is <br />still evolving. Whether and under what circumstances a state or its subdivisions may assert <br />copyright protection, was greatly enhanced by the new legislation but will remain subject to <br />COlin testing for some time to come. This report will point out some general aspects of <br />copyright law and elements of the law of Colorado which impact the state's ability to obtain <br />and enforce copyright protection, but will not reach the technical aspects of copyright <br />registration and enforcement <br /> <br />The first point to be noted with regard to this topic is that the General Assembly has stated <br />its intent to allow the state and its subdivision~ to obtain copyright protection for any public <br />records which may be copyrighted under federal law. In the amendments to the Public <br />Records law effective July 1st, 1992, the General Assembly added CRS 24-72-203(4). <br />This subsection provides that no clause in the Public Records law, <br /> <br />"...shall preclude the state or any of its agencies, institutions, or political <br />subdivisions from obtaining and enforcing trademark or copyright protection for <br />any public record, and the state and its agencies, institutions, and political <br />subdivision are hereby specifically authorized to obtain and enforce such protection <br /> <br />431.7 <br /> <br />PlanG'aphics, Inc. <br /> <br />16 <br />