Re: Emory HTML claim (was Re: Michigan case draws)

Don, if you find an HTNL editor/converter that will consistently produce HTML that looks the way the author wants it to without a lot of tweaking "by hand," please let me know where I can get a copy. Conversion from a static text document to a hypertext one is a more complex process, requiring "original" choices. Some choices, such as using italics or underlining tags around case names, are standard and (to me) obviously unoriginal. But there is room for variety and some degree of originality in how an author chooses to link footnotes, for example. And then one could add outside links, as you say -- perhaps links to definitions of arcane legal terms, or links from case citations to stored copies of cases -- which seems to put the document firmly in the realm of "original" works. The choices behind laying out a complex web document go far beyond the standardized layout in question in Feist.

I'm not a big fan of copyrighting HTML coding. If there is protection at all, it is no doubt thin as can be. But when I went to a great deal of effort to HTMLize Judge White's opinion in the Netcom case, I did put a little copyright notice at the bottom (with blanket license to copy and link at will). My motivation for including such a notice was that I hoped people would link (rather than copy the meat of the HTML code and strip my signature and links to my page) to the document, which contained links to my newsletter, and so more people would be led to my site. If I made a living off HTMLizing documents, though, I am sure I would prefer an enforceable right to prevent copying rather than merely an assertion of some makeshift attribution right. But of course, just 'cause some people want it to be so doesn't mean it *is* so.

I am sure Emory is just trying to cover the bases -- there hasn't been a ruling on HTML just yet, but it's a burgeoning business. Someone's toes will soon be stepped upon, no doubt, and we'll see what a court will say.

-Jason

Jason Gull
2L, The University of Michigan Law School jgull[_at_]umich.edu
http://www.law.umich.edu
"widget"-> http://www.umich.edu/~jgull/widget/

Don Berman writes:
>
> I find this troubling given that most HTML coversions are no doubt about
> as seamless as conversions for ASCII text to MS Word or Wordperfect. I
> just don't see the originality in converting ASCII text documents into
> various machine readable formats without any real effort. If he used
> unique cross-referencing links, stc. then one would have a different case.
>
>
> Don Berman --
Received on Sat Mar 16 1996 - 01:00:50 GMT