Template talk:CC-Whitehouse.gov

"Except where otherwise noted"
From reading the notice on the White House website, I thought the "Except where otherwise noted" part referred to the website itself. I'm not sure that it is necessary on Wikisource: if it wasn't licensed, we couldn't host it; and if it had a different licence, we would just use a different licence template. It doesn't cause a problem either but I can't see any cases where it would apply. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is what I was advised by email from the Press office when I first questioned the rash of deletions taking place here at the time. The nuance, which I've since affirmed independently as a sound one, is that much of what first "appears" on the website is soon after formally published in one official Federal government form or another and would then fall under the normal Title 17 exclusion for works of the Federal Government and/or by its employees during the course of their official duties, etc. etc. Since this (the Obana Administration) is the first Executive branch to use the CC-by in addition to 17 U.S.C. 105 to cover the occasional work falling outside that normal exclusions for re-use, they were being overly careful not to inadvertently sanction the usurption of the proper Federal copyright exclusion which, again, is 98% of the content found on the WhiteHouse website anyway. So this is one case where being 'first' doesn't translate to being the 'best' when it comes to the license that should be applied at the end of the day. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Currently the reading of the template doesn't make sense, especially on Author pages, and "Except where otherwise noted" out of context appears to refer to our site and not theirs. Not knowing the content of any emails sent from them, I am taking the liberty of updating the text; I hope it will still be satisfactory. I'm using the same wording used at https://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)