On 07/22/98, Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
>
> Of course Mr Wells' reconstruction is not the first one, but it is
> complex nonetheless, and therefore whatever sources and resources
> that he used (including those mentioned by Amy Stoller) even if they
> were in the public domain, and were themselves not original, are
> irrelevant, so long as the "new" text is original (has never existed
> before) as a whole.
This is simply wrong as a matter of copyright law. As Mr. Riolo pointed out to you quite plainly in the context of your Shakespeare hypothetical, and as several people have also pointed out to you in the context of your Dracula and "Touch of Evil" queries, only the original elements of a work are copyrightable. Public domain material does not become copyrighted by virtue of being incorporated into a new work. In this instance, the "new" text as a whole is not considered original or copyrightable -- only the parts of the "new" text, such as perhaps some of the selecton and arrangement, that were not previously in the public domain. Any elements that came from the public domain remain in the public domain.
> 2) It is the complexity and originality of the "new" text that is
> relevant.
No, only the originality is relevant. The fact that the task of assembling the "new" text may be complex is by itself entirely irrelevant. The selection and arrangement may be fantastically complex, but if it is not original, it is not the subject matter of copyright. There is no "complexity" requirement in the statute.
> (See my articles in Semiotica 111-1/2, 1996, pp. 55-73, and 119-1/2,
> 1998, pp. 23-76 for an analysis of the difficulties involved.)
Throughout this discussion you have been very focused on the "difficulty" and "complexity" of the job. But the Supreme Court has made it quite clear that effort, no matter how strenous, is not a criterion for copyright.
> I am not backing down on this!
Yes, we noticed. Perhaps you would prefer to take issue with the policy of not rewarding difficult or strenous compilation efforts? That might be your best position to take. The saying goes that one can always argue policy, even when the law is not on one's side.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:31 GMT