On 9/27/05, david dailey <david.dailey[_at_]sru.edu> wrote:
>
> For any private string B, if beta is related to B by
> gist(beta)=gist(B) and NOT(beta -> text(B') for any B' where
> B' infringes B)
> then beta is rightfully in the public domain. ( the symbols "->" mean
> "can be used to derive")
As usual, I enjoy reading your perspective from computer science.
The beta in your scenario is copyrightable and so, it is not accurate to say that beta is automatically in the public domain. It is possible for a summarizer to claim copyright in a summary of a public domain work (or work whose copyright is still active). Yet, the copyright is very thin that if the next summarizer makes a summary of the first summary of the public domain, there is not much that that first summarizer can do against the second summarizer unless the latter uses too much of the former's exact wordings.
> * a summary from which the original or an infringing facsimile might
> not be reconstructed by any known (or conceivable) process -- see a
> thing I wrote about reconstructing the works of James Joyce based on
> a graph theoretic co-occurrence concordance using frog retinas:
> http://srufaculty.sru.edu/david.dailey/copyright/joyce.htm
I don't know if you are serious about this. But, if it is presented to a court, the result that is reconstructed from large matrix so that it is identical to original work whose copyright is still active still infringes the original work's copyright. It does not matter whether the matrix is in the public domain.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<josephpietrojeungriolo[_at_]gmail.com>
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>
Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all knowledge of 1923 in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their copyright owners' prisons: 4,838
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. Received on Mon Oct 03 2005 - 22:50:45 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:55 GMT