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

Jason,

It all depends how fancy you want to get. One can download in ASCII, Word, WordPerfect and easily use a number of tools to convert.

Word does a rather crude job. Web Author by Quaterdeck ($60) does a fairly good job. I found that Transit will handle most choses but costs some money. WebPUblish SkiSoft, also a costly item, handles everything but footnotes. Hotmetal Pro ($185) will also do the job - and many jobs can be handled just by the free version of Hotmetal.

Granted, there maybe be tweaking "by hand" - but should I get a copyright if I use Wordperfect, add some underlines or italics? Given the nature of the work (legal opinions) and the minimal creativity (even though some effort may be entailed) I don't think one should have sufficient originality for copyright.

--Don

Donald Berman
<berman[_at_]ccs.neu.edu>

> 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 Mon Mar 25 1996 - 03:58:30 GMT