Re: Article on Protection of History

John Shaeffer <shaeffer[_at_]oslaw.com> wrote:
>
> I understand that you agree that the literary expression encompassed
> in any work founded on history should be entitled to broad copyright
> protection. Unfortunately, the current state of the law does not share
> our consensus.
>
> We continue to differ on the extent to which there is any "objective
> truth" in any exposition of history other than a simple recitation of
> facts. The current state of Copyright law seems to align itself with
> the scientific objectivity school of history, which fell out of favor
> among the academic community more than 50 years ago. While historians
> are retrenching from pure deconstructivism -- which taken to its extreme
> rendered the study of history meaningless -- the overriding literary
> ("creative") elements involved in any expression of history remain
> critical in any evaluation. It is this broader notion of creativity
> that is absent in the current discourse on the protection of works of
> history under the copyright law.
>
> Just so you know where my bias rests, I was counsel to Barbara
> Chase-Riboud in her case against DreamWorks over the film "Amistad." It
> was through that experience that I learned first hand the confusion
> surrounding the protection of works founded on historical fact

I don't think it's all that complicated. The works are protected; the historical facts are not. "Fictionalized" expression that is held out as fact is unprotected as fact.

Bob Cumbow
<cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> Received on Wed Apr 22 1998 - 15:45:37 GMT