This is the U.S., and these are U.S. Court decisions, and in the U.S. there is no copyright protection for fonts, layouts, formatting, etc. Period.
The argument that placement of HTML tags involves creative original expression is ridiculous. The HTML examples I offered were chosen because they yield precisely the same result on the screen. Now which is the "original expression", the result on the screen, or the tagging that produces it?
With simple and easily available software, one can take any HTML marked text and strip out the HTML tags, then insert different tags of one's own to produce precisely the same appearance on the screen. In some cases, the stripped tags and the new tags must be identical because there is no choice. To wit: the tag for italics is: <i>text</i>. If a word or phrase is italicized in a public domain text, there is no other tag that can be used. Does the first publisher to publish the work thereafter own the italics? Obviously, the use of the tag is utilitarian -- as is the use of all HTML tags.
Current print publishing procedures are mainly computerized, and these procedures involve tagging text for fonts, layouts, formatting, etc. Printers and typesetters treat these tags as utilitarian devices not protected by copyright -- at least I have yet to hear of a recent case in law to the contrary. Fonts are not copyright protected, and the choice of a font by an editor is not copyright protected -- certainly not in the U.S. The situation in the U.K. and Australia is something else. But it's beyond me how anyone could ever prove infringement of a right in a choice of a printer's font in a case and jurisdiction where such a ridiculous right may exist.
Of course, it's always possible to twist the idea of "derivative" work in order to produce the appearance of new and protected intellectual property. For the past 300 years, such twisting has produced a great deal of fun and commotion before the bar. But I, for one, refuse to accept the twisting in the case of HTML tags.
And finally, here is Sir William Blackstone:
"The identity of a literary composition consists entirely in the sentiment and the language." Ipse dixit.
Dan Agin
> Dan Agin wrote:
> >
> >Alan Sugarman wrote:
> >>
> >> But remember ... Emory copyrights the HTML version of this opinion
> >> and you may not use if for commercial purposes ... at least that is
> >> what Emory Law School claims.
> >
> > There can be no special copyright in an "HTML version" of any public
> > domain work.
>
> I have no doubt that this would be protected here (Australia) and
> also in the UK as a published edition (limited protection for a
> shorter term).
>
> I see no reason why it should not also be an adaptation or derivative
> work (other than legislative intent in Australia and the UK).
> There are a number of formatting decisions to be made in laying out
> the HTML and considerable effort expended to either write the
> software to convert the PD text version into HTML or hand mark it.
> An adaptation of a PD work would have very limited scope for
> infringement and I see no potential for abuse particularly if the PD
> work is available in another electronic form allowing independent
> creation to be cost effective.
>
>
> > Here is the above paragraph in an HTML version:
> >
> > But remember ... Emory copyrights the HTML version of this opinion<br>
> > and you may not use if for commercial purposes ... at least that is<br>
> > what Emory Law School claims.<p>
> >
> > Here is the same paragraph in another HTML version:
> >
> > <pre>
> > But remember ... Emory copyrights the HTML version of this opinion
> > and you may not use if for commercial purposes ... at least that is
> > what Emory Law School claims.
> > </pre>
>
> And I could give dozens of other examples many of which having
> considerably more density of tagging and radically different
> display. Of course, the more text, the more possibility for
> variation and creativity in the resulting display so your single
> paragraph example is hardly conclusive.
>
>
> > The various possible HTML tags are all utilitarian, completely without
> > originality.
>
> Ahh! But the result is not purely utilitarian. It involves some
> aesthetic consideration. By analogy you are saying that the layout
> of a book contains no originality because the type-setting/DTP/
> word-processing program commands are all utilitarian. I doubt
> publishers prepared to pay thousands of dollars to graphic designers,
> and thousands of graphic designers and layout editors who actually
> do the work, and the courts will agree with you.
>
> And I won't be convinced by a rehash of the West example. It is
> not typical of the way in which publishers arrive at a publishable
> work, PD or otherwise.
>
>
> > They specify line breaks, paragraph indents, fonts, etc.
> > The idea that one can wrap a public domain text in HTML tags
> > and have the total copyright protected is idiotic,
>
>
> If you read your own post you would realize that they are claiming
> copyright in `the HTML version' (presumably that particular HTML
> version) not over the whole work.
>
> I see no way that could be prevented from independently creating a
> different HTML version but why shouldn't Emory prevent them from
> using their `sweat' to do so.
>
> > What exactly do they think is protected?
>
> The derivative work.
>
>
> I fear a vested interest might be speaking here more loudly than
> objective legal analysis.
>
>
> Tim Arnold-Moore, LL.B. (Melb) | Multimedia Database Systems, CITRI |
> tja[_at_]citri.edu.au B.Sc. (Hons Melb) | 723 Swanston St ----------------
> Phone: +61 3 9282 2487 | Carlton 3053 | simul iustus
> Fax: +61 3 9282 2490 | Victoria, Australia | et peccator
> http://www.kbs.citri.edu.au/People/Tja/tja.html
Received on Fri Mar 15 1996 - 15:49:05 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:20 GMT