RE: Odd (and misleading) copyright statement

From: Angela Mott <angmott[_at_]uflib.ufl.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:20:30 -0400

I've noticed this in several books that I've had to examine for copyright statements. I think it IS misleading and quite likely deliberately so.

---

---

Angela Mott
Copyright Permissions Coordinator
George A. Smathers Libraries at the University of Florida

-----Original Message-----
From: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property [mailto:CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org] On Behalf Of Brewer, Michael Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 3:56 PM
To: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property Subject: [CNI-(C)] Odd (and misleading) copyright statement

All,

I was reading my 6 year old a copy of Wizard of Oz last night and noticed that there is a copyright notice in the front of the book
(published, if I remember correctly in 1999). The story was first
published, I think, in 1899 or something like that. The copyright statement (and I do not have it in front of me, so it could be slightly different) said something like "new material copyright 1999" and then went on to say, in the usual language, that no part of this book may be copied...... without the consent of .... etc." There was no indication what part of the text was "new", or whether or not it had been abridged, or changed in any way. My question is, isn't this terribly misleading? The implication is that nothing in the book can be used without the consent of the copyright holder (to whatever new material there might be, but not to the majority of the text, or even perhaps the entire text - the new material could be just illustrations, or notes). Is this a common practice? Is it, then, up to the user to determine what is new
(if anything) and what is not by doing a comparative textual analysis?

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

mb

Michael Brewer Received on Tue Aug 29 2006 - 02:20:30 GMT