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

On 22, July 1998, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Joseph P. Riolo <riolo[_at_]voicenet.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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 agree with Joseph on this point. I would like to see a requirement
> that, where a copyright notice is placed on a work that embodies both
> copyrighted and public domain material, the scope of the claim of
> copyright be declared. There is a requirement like this where the
> public domain material is PD by virtue of its being a work of the US
> government (in section 403).
>
> On the other hand, I should note that section 403 is rather lamely
> honored. On my own web pages, for example, I simply state "No claim
> of copyright is made for any work of the U.S. government," which
> doesn't tell the reader a whole lot. West publications say pretty
> much the same thing. My copy of BNA's compilation of IP statutes
> says "No copyright claimed in government or public domain material."
>
> I wouldn't mind at all if the requirement a) was extended to other PD
> material; and b) was tightened to require a specific disclaimer of
> the material not covered by the claim. Ideally, failure to mark
> appropriately would provide either a complete defense or a mitigation
> of damages for infringement.
>
> (Note: I expect others would not agree with me on this point, but if
> this were the requirement, and even if it provided for a complete
> defense, I would not regard it as violating Berne. I do not propose
> requiring a notice (which would violate Berne). I propose that,
> where a copyright owner chooses to include a notice, it must not be
> misleading, and must disclaim that to which their is no claim of
> copyright.)

I would like to agree to this, except that the very "public domainness" of certain portions of some material may be arguable. Publishers may feel then, that they are opening a very large Pandora's can of worms.

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 23 1998 - 18:24:50 GMT