Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!mailrus!bbn!bbn.com!cosell
From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell)
Newsgroups: comp.text.desktop
Subject: Re: Copyright Free or not?
Message-ID: <41140@bbn.COM>
Date: 8 Jun 89 22:04:04 GMT
References: <5829@microsoft.UUCP> <7650008@hpwrce.HP.COM>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 75

In article <7650008@hpwrce.HP.COM> howeird@hpwrce.HP.COM (Howard Stateman) writes:
}karl@grebyn.com (Karl Nyberg) writes:
}
}>There's a little leap of faith here that I think is being missed.  As far as
}>I know, it IS legal to copyright public domain material.  And there is
}>nothing to prevent somebody else from taking the same public domain material
}>and publishing it themselves (with their copyright).
}
}I think we have a semantics problem here, It is definitely legal to 
}include public domain material in a copyrighted publication. It's free,
}it requires no permissions or even notes as to its source. However,
}this does not mean you have copyrighted the public domain material. You
}haven't. You've copyrighted your material, and the form in which you have
}presented it. The PD material stays in the public domain.

We definitely have a semantic problem.  The problem is distinguishing a
*work* from an *embodiment* of a work.   If I take PD info and incorporate
it into a book, that *presentation* of the PD info is now copyrighted by me.
*copyrighted*.  That means you cannot *copy* _my_ presentation.  If you come
out with a work that looks like mine, you better be prepared to demonstrate
that you didn't get YOUR presentation by copying MINE.  This is moot in many
cases (e.g., the Constitution), but it is not at all moot in many others: map
makers have no claim to the topology of the roads they present to you.  So
they intentionally include errors so that they have VERY GOOD evidence that
when you start the Stateman map company they can show that you are copying
*their* copyrighted work.  If you can find the *information* on your own,
more power to you, but you can't base YOUR presentation on THEIR copyrighted
one.  Another non-moot occurrence happens when the PD form of a work is VERY
rare.  Someone invests the time and effort to track it down, *republishes* it
and now claims copyright (correctly!) to the *new*preseentation* of it.  YOu
can copy it, theoretically, for sure, but you can be assured that when you
land in court you'll have to *prove* that your work derived from the
non-copyrighted source (remember taht this will be a civil suit, so the 
plaintiff will only hae to show a preponderance of the evidence, and the
absence of any info that you flew to Africa to and sought out the only known
still-PD copy of the particular item will weigh against you.)

}> HOWEVER, it is illegal
}>to take the copyrighted material (in the form published) and copy it.  ...
}
}Yes and no. The original Constitution IS on parchment, and for me to
}take their reproduction as my source might be unethical, it is not 
}illegal.

Wrong!  You should check out copyright laws more carefully: the copyright is
not on the information, but on the *presentation*.  You cannot copy *MY*
stuff, NO MATTER WHAT you may think about the merits of my having that
information.  Period.  If it is PD, you are welcome to obtain it royalty-free
all by yourself, but if you copy something *I* publish, you need my
permission.

}If they added no value to the PD material, there would be
}no way for them to prove it was theirs that I used as the source. And
}it wouldn't much matter anyway, since you cannot steal something that
}is in the public domain. Public domain MEANS the public owns it.

It matters a lot, and you should consult a lawyer before you start publishing
your very own "Best of Dover Books" series.  Your statement about the
practicalities are correct, of course, especially for PD things that are
either hard to identify or commonly available.  But not all PD things are
that way, and republishing a once-PD item takes *that* instance of that item
*out* of the public domain.  Copying such works without authority is
_ethically_ stealing, even though, as you argue, the practicalities are that
you will almost never get caught.

This isn't misc.legal, but I can go see if I can find some legal precedents
concerning all this stuff if anyone cares about such...  Take my word for it,
the copyright goes with the *item* =-- if it is appropriately copyrighted,
then you can't copy it.  period!  Regardless of your arguments about the
parentage of the data or anything else.  If you think you have an alternate
source of the info (PD or not: it is fair to make your OWN arrangements with
the author, for example), go for it and publish your own, but you can't COYP
seomthing which someone else has copyrighted.

  /Bernie\