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

On 03, August 1998, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> Daniel J. Schaeffer <daniel_schaeffer[_at_]kirkland.com> wrote:
> >
> > Again, we're talking about public domain status, which I think
> > you'll agree can be difficult to pin down. Also, we're talking
> > about someone copying from a published work rather than putting
> > together his own work. IMHO, If someone wants to use a portion
> > of a published work, then he had better be pretty sure the portion
> > is in the PD, or that the use is fair use, or else he's infringing.
>
> And that's where I disagree. If a publisher is putting out a mixture
> of PD and copyrighted stuff and slapping a copyright notice on the
> entire work, I believe that the notice ought to be considered
> defective, since it doesn't perform the function that a notice ought
> to perform: informing the reader that the material is copyrighted.
>
> > As for publishers "claiming more copyright than they have" -- what
> > does this mean? If something is in the PD, then a publisher can't
> > claim copyright in it, regardless of what the copyright notice says.
>
> That's not true at all. A publisher can (and many do) make many
> claims, whether they're founded in law and fact or not. A copyright
> notice is a claim of copyright. My position is that when a publisher
> is making a claim with its notice, it ought to be specific.
>
> > (A publisher may be edging on copyright misuse or something like
> > that if it does so.) But if I'm a publisher and someone copies
> > my book, you can bet I want to be able to "inhibit" him -- unless
> > the portion is in the PD or the copying is fair use.
>
> That "unless" is a big part of it, don't you think? The inhibition
> I object to is publishing a new copy of the public domain "Dracula,"
> with a new copyrighted forward or cover art, slapping the same type
> of copyright notice on the published work as though it were all
> protected by copyright, and thereby inhibiting the public from
> copying the public domain material, which they have every right
> to copy.

Again, EVERY copy of Dracula that I can find in shops displays copyright claims in it. Is this not absurd? Why can't the publishers be honest and say:

Public Domain Material
Copyright in this edition limited to typesetting and layout. Reproduction of text only permitted. Any other use constitutes infringement.

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 Tue Aug 04 1998 - 14:14:06 GMT