Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Busby Book Copyright

["Captain Nemo" <vulcania@interpac.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brownlee" <jonnie@cobweb.scarymonsters.net>
To: <personal_submersibles@psubs.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 5:59 PM
Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Busby Book Copyright


 If the book is in the public domain, in it's entirety, than there s nothing
wrong with whole-scale copying. If it's not, then fair-use would be the
metric of what can be copied or re-distributed. Either way it is right and
respectful to check first.  John"

I tend to agree.

Those wishing to read the Regs could try:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/

I've been dabbling with patents and copyrights as a paralegal for about 20
years.  I am NOT an attorney, but on the subject of copyright duration, I
think Title 17 Chapter 3 is worth looking at.  The time limits changed in
1978, and previous Copyrights can be renewed.

Paragraph 302 appears to set the duration of a Copyright established on or
after 1-1-78 as extending throughout the life of the author plus another 70
years after his death.

Paragraph 304-A is the one I think most people are familiar with, which
appears to say that a Copyright in existence on 1-1-78 is good for 28 years.

HOWEVER, (and in the case of Busby's book, this could be a BIG however):
Paragraph 304-B (ii)  appears to state that, in the case of a Copyright
established on or before 1-1-78, and relative to a work that was made for
hire (which Busby's book may be if it was written on consignment of the
Navy); those having proprietary control over the Copyright (in this case,
the U.S. Government?), shall be entitled to renew and extend it for another
67 years.

AND, (again, possibly a big one): if Busby's book was not written for hire,
Paragraph 304-C (ii) seems to give his widow and children the same 67 year
extension privileges.

So, in my amateur opinion, it looks to me like the book could still be
protected from commercial republication; and until that issue is proven one
way or the other, I wouldn't assume it is not.

Then, there's the subject of what comprises "Infringement" versus the "Fair
Use" of Copyrighted material.  That's another long subject, and I'm not
going to go into it here; it's available at the URL listed above.  But
generally, my understanding is that the non-commercial reproduction of
limited parts of a protected work for such purposes as commentary,
educational dissemination of information, and the like, is acceptable.  It's
all based on the degree and purpose to which the reproduction is done and
used.

Basically, unless he otherwise relinquishes it, an author has rights to his
work from the moment it is created, whether he files a Copyright on it or
not.  Copyright Law really only establishes whether acts of infringement can
be prosecuted under those particular statutes, and whether convicted
infringers can be legally compelled to pay the damages established thereby.
The misappropriation or misuse of non-copyrighted materials can also be
condemned under the law; in civil suits, all that really changes is the
means by which the author prosecutes infringers.  That's how it looks to me,
anyway.  And remember, I am not an attorney or an authority.

But my own personal feelings are that, regardless of what is provided by
Law: in matters involving the intellectual property of others, those authors
(or others) with proprietary rights thereto should be asked for their
permission before any distribution of appreciable size is attempted.  It
makes sense from the standpoint of avoiding possible lawsuits; and if
nothing else,  (as John said above) it's a matter of "respect".   If we'd
all want our rights respected, then I think we should grant "the other guy"
the same consideration as well.

Well, that's my dos centavos...sure hope this helps!   ;-)

Pat