Re: Odd (and misleading) copyright statement

well, we run into this claim all the time don't we -- "no part of this broadcast may be copied or rebroadcast without the express written permission of the [sport league] and [media network]."

And yet, we know about fair use, facts, and so on. Even though they broadcast the score, I can reproduce it as much as I want and distribute it to everyone I know.

I would like to see a copyright reg on this which requires a more naked claim of copyright with a west publishing-like disclaimer "no copyright claimed in . . ."

I think that would be the best way to handle it.

Steve

On 8/29/06, Dodi Schultz <SCHULTZ[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> Michael Brewer writes, about a copy of "Wizard of Oz" published just a few
> years ago [the original, "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz," was published in
> 1900], that it bears a somewhat confusing copyright notice, which:
>
> >> ...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 it, then, up to the user to determine
> >> what is new (if anything) and what is not...?
>
> That sent me to my bookshelf and my copy of "The Annotated Wizard of Oz /
> The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, by L. Frank Baum / Pictures by W.W. Denslow /
> With an Introduction, Notes, and Bibliography by Michael Patrick Hearn"
> (Clarkson N. Potter, 1973). Denslow was the original illustrator (he'd also
> worked with Baum on earlier books).
>
> The copyright notice in THIS book raises even larger questions. It reads,
> "Copyright 1973 by Michael Patrick Hearn. All rights reserved. No part of
> this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
> transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
> photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission
> of the Publisher."
>
> This suggests that Hearn was claiming all right not only to his intro,
> annotations, etc. but also to Baum's text and Denslow's illustrations. That
> doesn't seem right.
>
> Comments?
>
> --DS
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> To resume mail list message delivery from postpone mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-feed[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
>
>

-- 
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law