Re: Emory HTML claim (was Re

Dan Agin wrote:
>
> 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.

Cite? (And Feist does not convince me). BTW this is an International list but we are arguing about a US site.

> The argument that placement of HTML tags involves creative original
> expression is ridiculous.

You said placement. I said choice. There is considerable difference.

> 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?

And I argued that what gave the originality was the decisions about how the HTML should look, not which particular utilitarian choice of tags to achieve that look.  

> 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.

You've completely missed the point. It is the appearance on the screen which gives the originality. I am arguing that the look is what is protected not the actual coding mechanism Emory chose. Independent creation would almost certainly give a different look on the screen (unless the same conversion software was used).  

> 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

I don't disagree with any of this and haven't in any previous posts.

> of a font by an editor is not copyright protected -- certainly not in the
> U.S.

The choice of font in isolation is not protected but that is one choice in many. I'm not even arguing that every ASCII to HTML conversion is protectable just that some can and should be. If all that is done is to put a <p> tag at the end of every paragraph then I think Feist has a clear scope of operation, but the arrangement of pages, the choice of headings and heading styles, the placement of ancilliary information are arbitrary aesthetic decisions and I can see situations where these would and should be protected.

> 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.

The right does not extend that far and I never suggested it should.  

> And finally, here is Sir William Blackstone:
>
> "The identity of a literary composition consists entirely in the sentiment
> and the language." Ipse dixit.

I thought we were assuming that the literary work was in the PD? The layout arrangement, if protected at all must be an artistic work and therein lies the key to our dissent.

Tim Arnold-Moore, LL.B. (Melb)      | Multimedia Database Systems, CITRI  |
tja[_at_]citri.edu.au  B.Sc. (Hons Melb) | 723 Swanston St      ----------------
Tel: +61 3 9282 2487   Fax: ..2490  | Carlton 3053         |  simul iustus 
    http://www.kbs.citri.edu.au/People/Tja/tja.html        |   et peccator