On 07/14/98, Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
>
> Well, then, why does OUP have "copyright" all over the front of
> the book?
Because some of the content is original, such as the notes, and possibly certain aspects of the editing and formatting.
> Mr Wells' reconstruction, together with the notes and introductions,
> certainly deserves copyright protection;
That is a different question from whether it in fact recieves copyright protection.
> besides, that's the only way such a book can support itself.
This is by no means clear. People from Stephen Breyer to John Perry Barlow have proposed methods by which publications may be self-supporting absent copyright protection, and works that lack such protection frequently employ some of these other methods, such as subscription, bundling, patronage, and so on.
> 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.
Yes, but that is not copyright in Shakespeare's complete works -- only copyright in the protectable aspects of the Wells edition. Whatever portions of the edition are in the public domain can be extracted without penalty.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:30 GMT