Re: Academics and coursepacks

Joseph Pietro Riolo <riolo[_at_]voicenet.com> wrote:
>
> First, usual and boring disclaimer, I am not an expert in the area of
> intellectual property and I am not a lawyer.
>
> On Mon, 13 Jul 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.
>
> However, it is very likely that the organization of the original
> pieces is copyrightable.
>
> Say, person A finds four pieces of papers in an old cave and he
> labels them: A, B, C, and D. After he spends many hours studying
> these pieces, he determines that the order of the pieces should be
> B, C, A, and D. I think that he owns the copyright in that order
> but each of these pieces remains in the public domain.
> Person B comes and sees these pieces. He can copy each piece one
> at a time, separately from other pieces. That is, he takes piece A
> and goes to copy room and xerox it and gives back the piece A to
> person A. He then takes piece B and goes to copy room and xerox
> it and gives back the piece B to person A. And so on for pieces
> C and D.
>
> What person B cannot do is to take a binder of copies of the
> pieces B, C, A, and D in that order from person A and goes to
> copy room and xerox pieces B, C, A, and D in that order and
> gives back the binder to person A. Person B is infringing person
> A's copyright in that order.
>
> However, person B can spend many hours studying the pieces and
> determine that the order is B, C, A, and D. Person B then can
> own the copyright in that order. In that case, both persons A
> and B own separate copyrights in the same order of the pieces.
> To say in fewer words, it is OK to copy each public domain
> piece but it is not OK to copy the pieces in the order that
> the other person creates when he is reconstructing the pieces.
> To add another wrinkle to the issue, if person A is very possessive
> and jealous and lustful for power, money, and control, he will make
> person B's life so miserable by accusing him for "stealing" (that
> is, copying) his (person A's) order.
>
> But, correct me if I am wrong.

I think that Mr. Riolo may be wrong. Copyright protects only an "original" selection, coordination or arrangement of preexisting materials. When you say person A finds that the order of the pages "should be" BCAD, I assume you mean that he discovers that that is the order in which the parts were previously arranged by the author. Thus, person A has not created an original compilation, but merely "discovered" someone else's compilation. That "discovery" would not be copyrightable, and anyone would be free to copy it.

Prof. Jay Dougherty
Loyola Law School
fjdoughe[_at_]lmulaw.lmu.edu
213-736-1461 Received on Wed Jul 15 1998 - 22:24:49 GMT