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

On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, Daniel Schaeffer <daniel_schaeffer[_at_]kirkland.com> wrote:
>
> On 22, July 1998, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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).
>
> This is not just a question of who should bear the burden of identifying
> public domain material in a published work. The real question is who
> should bear that burden **when someone chooses to copy the published
> work**. If you want to copy a published work, and you believe some or
> all of what you want to copy is in the public domain, then you ought to
> bear the burden of showing it if necessary.

I think that's where we disagree as a matter of policy. In my mind, someone pasting a copyright claim on a work known to be a mixture of copyrighted material and public domain material, should make the scope of his claim clear. It seems burdensome to me to move that burden to a potential copier, because it effectively allows the claimant to presumptively lay claim to public domain material. I do not believe that that presumption is justified.

> What would be the point of such a rule?

To reduce the tendency of publishers to claim more copyright than they have as an inhibitory tactic.

--
Terry Carroll       |    
Santa Clara, CA     |    
carroll[_at_]tjc.com     |       
Modell delendus est |