[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Multiple recipients of list BOOK_ARTS-L <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Copyright-copywrite
- From: Anne and Lester Hendrix <hendrix@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 01:54:59 -0700
- Message-id: <199609041842.LAA07972@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "The Book Arts: binding, typography, collecting" <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Quoting from September 1992 edition of "Copyright Basics" (Circular 1, Copyright
Office, U.S. Govt. Printing Office (not copyrghted)):
Page 2: "Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can
rightfully claim copyright."
Simple? Read on.
"In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is presumtively
considered the author" and "The authors of a joint work are co-owners of the copyright,
unless there is an agreement to the contrary."
I suppose both could apply to an encyclopedia.
"Copyright in each separate contribution to a periodical or other collective work is
distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole and vests initially with the
author of the contribution."
Page 3: Under heading "What Is Not Protected by Copyright": "Works consisting (bold
italic) entirely (end bold italic) of information that is common property and containing
no original authorship. For example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape
measures and rulers, and lists or tables taen from public documents or other common
Obviously (I guess), any 1851 copyright has long been in public domain. But how does
the reprint differ from the original?
Consider another issue: Does the dust jacket contain false advertising? In New York
there is (or was) a criminal statute in regards to false advertising but I daresay you'd
go a long way to find a district attorney who would enforce it.
It would probably be a good idea to consult an attorney.