Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Intellectual Property topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates ethics and copyright after city assets appeared in private 'Solvang Passport' app
Summary
Council heard staff that a city marketing video had been used in a privately developed 'Solvang Passport' app and debated whether the mayor's involvement with the app posed a conflict of interest; staff will inventory city intellectual property, advise on copyright/trademark registration options, and propose enhanced council protocols for disclosures.
Council spent significant time on March 23 discussing a privately developed 'Solvang Passport' mobile application that, staff said, had used a video asset from the city's SolvangUSA marketing site. The mayor had the video removed from the app after staff raised concerns; no formal enforcement action was taken at the meeting.
Staff counsel reported that the city owns the contractor‑produced video in question under its contract with TJA and that the mayor voluntarily removed the clip from the app after staff identified its reuse. Counsel noted that copyright protection generally attaches at creation but that federal copyright registration is required to file a federal enforcement action; the city currently has no registered copyrights or trademarks for its marketing assets and staff recommended an inventory and options for registration.
The council debate touched two distinct issues: (1) whether city‑owned creative assets should be formally registered and what enforcement posture the city should adopt when those assets are reused without authorization, and (2) whether a sitting mayor's private development of a tourism app that markets businesses in Solvang creates an ethical conflict or the appearance of impropriety when the mayor engages businesses in his official capacity.
Staff counsel recommended two follow‑up items: (a) prepare an inventory of city creative assets and present options (including partial or bundled copyright registration and cost estimates) for council decision, and (b) review council protocols and disclosure practices so councilmembers notify peers and staff of private commercial activities that could create conflicts or perceived bias. Council directed staff to return with both items.
Councilmembers expressed sharply divided views. Some members said the optics of a mayor presenting and marketing a private app to local businesses while serving as the city's top elected official risked undermining public trust and that council should ask the mayor to avoid using city‑owned material in private ventures. Others said private enterprise by elected officials is common and that existing state rules and the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) complaint process are the appropriate enforcement routes.
On the specific infringement question, staff said the city could instruct the app owner to remove identified city content and pursue further legal action if needed once the council decides whether to register assets for federal enforcement. The mayor had already removed the identified video and staff indicated they would follow up with the mayor and with formal options for protecting future assets.
No formal cease‑and‑desist motion was adopted at the meeting. Instead, council asked staff to return with an IP strategy and proposed changes to council disclosure/ethics protocols for further consideration.
