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

Joseph P. Riolo <riolo[_at_]voicenet.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Keep in mind that not only the publishers but also authors, artists,
> compilers, historians, printers, singers, pastors, priests, editors,
> and countless professionals routinely put a blanket copyright notice
> on their works without saying whether any portion of their works
> comes from public domain materials. Why do they do that? Probably,
> tradition or custom. Probably, very vast ignorance of effects they
> have on the society (probably as the result of the ignorance of the
> history and philosophy of intellectual properties). Probably,
> greedy. Probably, laziness.

     And probably because doing so has no affect whatever on how anyone uses the public domain material.

     I just don't see your problem. If one wants to publish Dracula, the fact that all the other Draculas have cryptic copyright notices has no affect. Anyone in publishing knows or ought to know which parts of the Draculas the notices apply to.

• Mike Bradley National Writers Union <michael[_at_]vision-soft.com>