Re: Academics and coursepacks

On 13, July 1998, Timothy Phillips <hrothgar[_at_]telepath.com> wrote:
>
> Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
> >
> > The pieces may be there, but it will take an architect (not a
> > repairman) to re-create the original.
>
> Even if this were the case with Shakespeare (and it sounds more
> like the reconstruction of a lost ancient work from quotations and
> derivative versions) the "architect" is reconstructing SOMEONE
> ELSE's authorship.
>
> A scholar of Shakespeare (or Hippolytus, or Irenaeus, or St. Patrick)
> shouldn't have it both ways. If he's restoring what Shakespeare
> wrote, then by definition what the result is not an original work
> of the scholar's own authorship, but of Shakespeare's. Copyright
> should be denied, regardless of how much work the scholar expends
> in establishing the text.

Well, then, why does OUP have "copyright" all over the front of the book? Mr Wells' reconstruction, together with the notes and introductions, certainly deserves copyright protection; besides, that's the only way such a book can support itself. Copyright ownership and authorship are not the same thing. OUP can indeed come to own the copyright to Shakespeare's Complete Works, edited by Mr Wells.

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 Tue Jul 14 1998 - 12:49:48 GMT