Forwarded message:
>From CNICOPY@charlie.usd.edu Wed Jul 7 19:11:04 1993
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 18:11:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: CNICOPY@charlie.usd.edu
To: CNI-COPYRIGHT@CNI.ORG
Cc: CNICOPY@charlie.usd.edu
Message-Id: <930707181109.7cbd@charlie.usd.edu>
Subject: electronic copyright collections of public domain material
I think that the press release issued by World Library says or at least
implies that the judgment goes a lot further than it actually does.
First, I would like to point out that this is a consent judgment. A
consent judgment does not have the same precedent authority as a regular
judgment or opinion. Essentially it is a settlement agreed to by the
parties and blessed by the judge. It is enforceable by and against the
two parties, but it is not binding upon the court in later cases.
Second, the statement that "World Library owns a copyright on the
electronic translation of those works [underlying printed public domain
works]" is a statement made by an attorney, not a statement made in
the judgment. What the court said is that "World Library is the author
of copyrighted original compilations of literary works ... " That means
that World Library has a compliation copyright on the compilations
entitled "Greatest Books Collection," "Electronic Home Library,"
"Library of the Future, First edition," and "Library of the Future
Series Second edition." I don't think anyone would dispute that World
Library has a valid compilation copyright, but that is not the same thing
as a copyright in the individual component works that make up the
compilation. Section 103(b) specifically states that
"The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends
only to the material contributed by the author of such work,
as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in
the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the
preexisting material. The copyright in such work is
independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope,
duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright
protection in the preexisting material.
Nowhere in the judgment does the court say that World Library has
a copyright in the electronic versions of the individual works included
in their compilation works.
In my view, reading between the lines, it sounds like Pacific HiTech
took all of the text from these compilations and by taking all they
probably infringed the copyrightable aspects of the compilation such
as selection and arrangement. Knowing that they would probably lose
on that basis, they probably decided that it wasn't worth fighting the
case or that it would be too expensive.
I don't think you can
read this judgment as saying that someone who took an individual
electronic text from a compilation of public domain material infringed
the copyright in the compilation. Nor do I think you can read this
judgment as saying that if someone else chooses to include some of
the same titles in their own compilation that they have violated the
compilation copyright.
In short, I don't think this judgment tells us much more about the
law than we already knew except that some publishers of electronic
compilations of public domain material will take whatever measures
they can to protect their investments including suing people and that
they have the clout to make others back down. We can no longer sit
back and just assume that no one will be sued. And above all, make
sure that you don't take someone else's whole compilation.
Mary Brandt Jensen CNICOPY@CHARLIE.USD.EDU
Professor of Law (605) 677 6363
University of South Dakota (605) 677 6357 fax
School of Law
414 E. Clark St.
Vermillion, SD 57069-2390
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST