Timothy ...
First, be clear that a lot of the quotations to which you refer are <not> my quotations.
Second, apart from the question whether the HTML markup, which mostly is the product of a public domain program, (sort of like copyrighting a Word Perfect version of a public domain court opinion originally released in Word for Windows format), the issue that most offends my sense of propriety is for the United States federal courts to be letting an institution publish copyrighted opinions under the official seals of the courts. The last thing we want is to have the official version be copyrighted, which is where some people are heading in the courts. So, if Emory takes off the court seal and does not hold itself out as being sanctioned by the courts, then who cares what they do.
Now, there is no Crown copyright in the US, to the contrary. For that reason, I can see why this does not bother you as much. But, these different philosophical perspectives go back to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Alan
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Alan D. Sugarman Federal Appeals on Disc tm CD-ROM ::
President Opinions of US Courts of Appeals ::
1993 to Date - All Circuits ::
HyperLaw, Inc. ® ::
P.O. Box 1176 DO NOT SHORT CIRCUIT YOUR CLIENTS ::
New York, NY 10023 ::
sugarman[_at_]hyperlaw.com 212-787-2812 212-496-4138(fax) ::
::
/// /// /// ::
/// /// /// ::
/// /// /// ::
//////////////// /// ::
//////////////// /// ::
/// /// /// ::
/// /// /////////// ::
/// /// /////////// ® ::
::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
<---- Begin Included Message ---->
> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 17:01:52 +1100 > From: Timothy Arnold-Moore <tja[_at_]phobos.kbs.citri.edu.au> > Reply-To: cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org > Sender: owner-cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org > Subject: Emory HTML claim (was Re: Michigan case draws ) > To: cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org > > 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. > > > > Dan Agin > > =========================================== > > Spectrum Press Inc. > > 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 >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:20 GMT