Re: Academics and coursepacks

Two points of clarification here:

Tim Phillips <hrothgar[_at_]telepath.com> wrote:
>
> The expert who claims to have restored what Shakespeare wrote should
> not be allowed to do a back-flip and claim that the emendation is an
> original work of authorship. For original notes and commentary, the
> textual scholar gets a copyright. For establishing a fact (what
> someone else wrote) the scholar should be required to be content with
> scholarly laurels.

1. By "play" I meant to include emendations, notes, commentary, glossaries, etc. They make the "play" as a whole copyrightable.
2. I was not suggesting that Wells was the new "author"; but the new "owner" of the copyright of the "composite" (together with OUP).

Michael A Scarpitti
Assistant Editor
Materials Evaluation
1711 Arlingate Lane
PO Box 28518
Columbus, Ohio 43228-0518
800 222-2768 Ext 207
614 274-6003 Ext 207
Fax 614 274-6899
<mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> Received on Thu Jul 09 1998 - 13:23:53 GMT