Re: Copyright in Arrangement (Was: Re: Academics and coursepacks)

On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
>
> Could you please respond to my original formulation of the problem of
> the Oxford University Press owning the copyright on Wells 1985 edition
> of Shakespeare's works, one which I affirm but others would deny. I
> thought your reformulation left out important details of my original
> question, which was that it would take an architect (not a repairman) to
> reconstruct an ancient structure that existed only in thousands of
> fragments, many missing or damaged. I claim similar work in the field
> of Shakespeare would constitute something deserving copyright
> protection, because it goes beyond mere "repair" or emendation.

It is very common that the publishers and authors are not obligated to tell the readers which part of their works come from the public domain materials and which part of their works are really their own. I feel (just my personal feeling, no intention to disparage anyone) that they are a bit unethical when their works contain public domain materials and they have made no effort to inform the readers which parts of their works are actually from the public domain materials.

I do not know Wells 1985 edition of Shakespeare's works and I do not have any copy of it. Based on others' discussions, it seems that the majority of the edition comes from the public domain materials. If that is correct, then, Oxford University Press can claim copyright only in the small parts of the edition that do not come from the public domain materials such as the footnotes, introduction, side bars, and so on. How much money and time Wells spent on the edition does not matter at all, because the copyright law only recognizes the author.

Say, pages 1 to 100 of the edition contain introduction, pages 101 to 500 contain several plays that are copied from the public domain materials, pages 501 to 600 contain footnotes (or endnotes), pages 601 to 900 contain several more plays that are copied from the public domain materials, pages 901 to 1000 contain some more footnotes. Only pages 1 to 100, 501 to 600, and 901 to 1000 are copyrighted by the Oxford University Press. Others are free to copy pages 101 to 500 and 601 to 900, in spite of the clear copyright notice on the copyright page.

Your use of the architect as an analogy is very poor, I am afraid. Amy Stoller (known as ghoti) said very well why the analogy does not work. I really doubt that Wells did all of his edition on his own without the aid from the previous publications and scholars (not from ruins). This is much unlike the architect who is the "first" person to try to reconstruct an ancient structure.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com> Received on Wed Jul 22 1998 - 00:45:45 GMT