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

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Michael Bradley <michael[_at_]vision-soft.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Anyone in publishing ought to know, but what about a teacher, or someone who might want to make a copy of a chapter or two of the public domain material? What about an over-enthusiastic employee at a Kinko's who might refuse to allow copying of the public domain material because there's a copyright notice in the front of the book?

And with Dracula, it's easy. But what is the material is PD in ways that are less easy to discern? Say that material a work published in 1922 (public domain). Are we expecting everyone to know that 1922 stuff is PD and 1923 stuff may not be? What if it's something published in 1950 whose copyright was never renewed? What if it's a mixture of copyrighted original material and uncopyrighted U.S. government publications?

Why should a reader be saddled with the chore of figuring out the scope of the publisher's claim of copyright?

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