Hi BB, Read below your own words and you prove me right! Furthermore, Micheal did mention uniqueness. Do you realize how easy it is to add this or " an original work of authorship"! How naive can you get. I had thought you to be fairly intelligent, and you can fill in the blanks. I am not going to draw you a picture. I guess I expect to much of this world, and will just to have to let things float. Maybe my friends are right that I talk to far over the heads of most. But, I simply have do not the nerve to orate ten minutes what I can state in one sentence. regards Keith. Am 02.12.2010 um 08:30 schrieb Bowerbird@aol.com:
michael said:
you COULD create a copyrightable edition of Shakespeare just by collecting up what YOU think would be the best editions of each play, sonnet, poem, etc.
seriously? compilation copyright? no... seriously?
just gotta pick at the scab, don't you?, can't let it heal. :+)
considering how 180-degrees-wrong keith got things, even though he was merely talking about the _basics_, i thought it enough to point him in the right direction...
you'll just confuse him all over again by bringing up compilation copyright. so please do not do that, ok?
let him get used to crawling before you invite him to swim.
Actually, bowerbird is incorrect
not really. you just introduced a different wrinkle is all...
so why don't you explain to keith that he got it all wrong?
-bowerbird
p.s. but for those of you who would like to go swimming:
http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/compilation.htm
The law identifies three distinct elements, all of which must be met for a work to qualify as a copyrightable compilation: 1. the collection and assembly of pre-existing material, facts, or data; 2. the selection, coordination, or arrangement of those materials; and 3. the creation, by virtue of the particular selection, coordination, or arrangement of an original work of authorship. Collection and assembling facts and information isn't enough. Compilations, just as any other work, may only be copyrighted if the originality requirement, “an original work of authorship,” is met.
and here's some more:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
A “collective work” is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole.
A “compilation” is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term “compilation” includes collective works. ... (b) 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.
and more:
***
but really, all you are doing here is confusing poor keith further.
of course, all this cross-nationalism confusion is something that the corporations _love_ to take advantage of... anything that will make the situation more complicated serves their ulterior motives.
so, again why don't you explain to keith that he got it all wrong? surely you don't want to foster this cross-nationalist confusion... _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d