[Upd-discuss] Google public domain library?

[Michael Hart]

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--927332834-1061656344-1103388890=:11506
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT


Don't forget compilation copyright.

You might have put the database in with a complete collection of everything,
or a complete collection of that author, subject, etc.  It might not have to
be complete YET. . .but there is NO compilation copyright on "complete" works
of this that or the other. . .as there is no "intellectual input" in the
selection process.


I am not a lawyer. . .this is NOT a legal opinion or legal advice.

IANAL = I am not a lawyer.


On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 michael.davis@law.csuohio.edu wrote:

> The DMCA is another issue. But assuming you have legitimately downloaded
> the work in unencrypted form, the underlying work is then yours to do with
> as you wish (including collecting into another database and distributing
> it), assuming no copyright applies to it. In theory you could do that for
> the entire database. Any license or contract to the contrary would almost
> inevitably be held pre-empted by federal law, as it would illegitimately
> extend the copyright beyond its term or beyond its subject matter. There
> are cases to this effect but none, obviously, in the post DMCA world.
>
>
>> Do you mean that people could just use OCR over the digitized PD works
>> and extract the PD work in itself ?
>>
>> What about the DMCA then ?
>>
>> Would it apply and forbid it ?
>>
>> Jean-Baptiste Soufron, Doctorant
>> CERSA - CNRS, Paris 2
>> http://soufron.free.fr
>>
>> Le 18 déc. 04, à 03:52, michael.davis@law.csuohio.edu a écrit :
>>
>>> While it may be true that conversion to a different medium may, at
>>> times,
>>> create a new copyright, the copyright applies to the medium and not the
>>> underlying work. Capturing the underlying work and reconverting it,
>>> even
>>> to the same medium, should present few, if any, copyright problems.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Richard Stallman wrote:
>>>>> Under US copyright law, converting the work to a different medium
>>>>> creates a new copyright.  So scanned files made from a public-domain
>>>>> book would not themselves be in the public domain.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if this is generally true or how it varies in other
>>>> countries.  But a related problem is important enough:
>>>>
>>>> With or without copyright, it is possible for a digitization project
>>>> not to share their "source" (useful for reuse) files such as high
>>>> resolution TIFF images and OCR text.  The large scale projects at the
>>>> University of Michigan (JSTOR, Making of America)  keep their source
>>>> files under the surface of a user interface.  All the user can do is
>>>> to enter a search phrase, and then a low resolution page image is
>>>> shown, which isn't useful for printing or OCR or copy-and-pasting of
>>>> text. Many German digitization projects don't even have a fulltext
>>>> search function because they found OCR too hard, the only way to find
>>>> anything is to browse an index of articles.  And the user cannot
>>>> download high resolution images and make their own OCR.  Some projects
>>>> (JSTOR, DigiZeitschriften) contain copyrighted (1920--1980) texts
>>>> after having negotiated contracts with publishers and use this fact as
>>>> an excuse for hiding the source files, but these archives stay
>>>> closed-source also on non-copyrighted (pre 1920) material.
>>>>
>>>> This is where Google Print will most probably end up, and this is why
>>>> we still need Brewster Kahle's "Million Book Project" and PG/PGDP as
>>>> free alternatives.  We need some Creative Commons license for those
>>>> digitization projects that want to declare that they are open-source.
>>>> But first we need a clear definition of what "source" means in the
>>>> context of digitization projects, so that we can say "no, you aren't"
>>>> when the University of Michigan claims their projects are open.
>>>>
>>>> I really liked NPR's Talk of the Nation interview with Brewster Kahle
>>>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4229570
>>>> this Wednesday, but I'm confused about his lack of emphasis on the
>>>> openness issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>   Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se)
>>>>   Project Runeberg - free Nordic literature - http://runeberg.org/
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Upd-discuss mailing list
>>>> Upd-discuss@lists.essential.org
>>>> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mickey Davis
>>> _________________________________
>>> Prof. Michael H. Davis
>>> Professor of Law
>>> Cleveland State Univ. College of Law
>>> 1801 Euclid Ave.
>>> Cleveland, OH 44115-2214
>>> (mailing address: 2121 Euclid Ave. LB 234)
>>> 216-687-2228
>>> _____________________________________________________________
>>> Patent Attorney Admitted to Practice Before the US Patent and Trademark
>>> Office Reg.No. 45,863
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Upd-discuss mailing list
>>> Upd-discuss@lists.essential.org
>>> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Mickey Davis
> _________________________________
> Prof. Michael H. Davis
> Professor of Law
> Cleveland State Univ. College of Law
> 1801 Euclid Ave.
> Cleveland, OH 44115-2214
> (mailing address: 2121 Euclid Ave. LB 234)
> 216-687-2228
> _____________________________________________________________
> Patent Attorney Admitted to Practice Before the US Patent and Trademark
> Office Reg.No. 45,863
>
> _______________________________________________
> Upd-discuss mailing list
> Upd-discuss@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss
>
--927332834-1061656344-1103388890=:11506--