Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-201P.ZS>

You're a bit confused as usual, Hyman.

http://www.ivanhoffman.com/tasini.html

"The United States Supreme Court ruled that print publishers such as
newspapers and magazines may not use material in online databases to
which they had previously obtained only print rights from independent
contractor creators. The Court’s ruling establishes that such online and
electronic uses are separate uses from that of print.  Publishers had
argued that they had these rights under the “collective works” section
of the United States Copyright Act.  That section provides in part: 

§ 201. Ownership of copyright 

(c) Contributions to Collective Works.-Copyright in each separate
contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the
collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the
contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or
of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is
presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and
distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective
work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective
work in the same series.

        The publishers' argument was that the online uses within an
electronic database were a “revision of that collective work,” meaning a
revision of the original print publication.  This was the argument
rejected by the Court saying that the use within a database was a
separate use, not contemplated by the foregoing provisions. The Court
stated: 
In accord with Congress prescription, a publishing company could reprint
a contribution from one issue in a later issue of its magazine, and
could reprint an article from a 1980 edition of an encyclopedia in a
1990 revision of it; the publisher could not revise the contribution
itself or include it in a new anthology or an entirely different
magazine or other collective work.

The Contractual Significance

        The issue arose because the contracts by which such print rights
were acquired were either silent on the issue of “electronic rights” or
were vague and uncertain.  I have written about this issue in several
other articles that you should read on my site.  See “Electronic Issues
in Publishing Contracts,”  “Electronic Publishing and the Potential Loss
of First Serial Rights” and “Digital Rights Management.” 

        If you are a publisher or have otherwise acquired rights to
materials and your contract is more than just a few years old, it may be
deficient either because it does not speak to or is vague in defining
the “electronic rights” that you need.  You should examine your
contracts in this regard and if necessary, have those contracts updated
for current and future use. 

© 2001 Ivan Hoffman 

****************
This article is not intended as a substitute for legal advice.  The
specific facts that apply to your matter may make the outcome different
than would be anticipated by you.  You should consult with an attorney
familiar with the issues and the laws. 
****************

No portion of this article may be copied, retransmitted, reposted,
duplicated or otherwise used without the express written approval of the
author. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

MAIL

Where Next? 

Ivan Hoffman Attorney At Law || More Helpful Articles For Writers and
Publishers|| More Internet and Electronic Rights Articles||More Articles
for Web Site Designers and Site Owners || Home"

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)