Recently in compilation Category

November 5, 2009

How Much Public Domain Can You Eat?

eatpublicdomain.jpg
Dear Rich: I am creating a computer program that requires a lot of line art. I found a series of books ('Scan This Book', 'Scan This Book Two', and, of course, 'Scan This Book Three') that display excellent public domain line art. The legalese at the beginning of the book states that all of the art is copyright free, but that the selection and layout is copyrighted. My program has nothing to do with distributing clip art, and I do not need to use the layouts used in the books. If I were to use most of the art from these books, would I be infringing on the author's/publisher's copyright? Would it matter if I slightly altered the images by coloring them? Would it matter if I combined their selection of images with other public domain images? The short answer is that you're fine copying the material in the book. Like all-you-can-eat restaurants, owners of public domain collections don't mind how much you digest, they just don't want you taking all their stuff and selling it somewhere else. Assuming your software product is not created to sell public domain art, there's no reason to bother with any of your other questions.
Copyright Rules. As you know, you can do whatever you want with public domain artwork. However, under copyright law, the owners of the book may have a compilation copyright. We say "may" because compiling public domain works doesn't automatically amount to a compilation copyright. There must be sufficient creativity in the judgment, selection and arrangement of the public domain material -- for example, "The Best American Stories from the 19th Century" or "Sketches of Victorian Kitchens" are probably protectable because they require decision-making and selections. Even if the book constitutes a copyrightable collection, that copyright is still regarded as being "thin" -- meaning that you would need to lift nearly all of the thing "as is" to infringe it. Public domain compilers such as Dover are primarily concerned with someone taking their material and competing with them. In summary, if you are using the public domain material for aesthetic or decorative purposes and not redistributing the artwork for re-use or re-sale, you're free to do whatever you want.
BTW. The Dear Rich Staff believes that the Scan This Book series is out of print (we couldn't find new copies available online and we couldn't locate the publisher Art Direction Book Company). That doesn't mean nobody will assert copyright; but it does indicate that it's not at the forefront of a publisher's radar.

To learn more about public domain, see Stephen Fishman's book The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art & More.
September 17, 2009

Punjabi iPhone Dictionary App

Thumbnail image for PJDict.JPGDear Rich: I recently found myself working on a project that involved an iPhone application that would function as a Punjabi language dictionary. I retrieved this dictionary by re-typing it into a database without the permission of the university that holds the copyright. The dictionary is also available online, however the copyright footer only mentions the software company that made the dictionary front-end, not the actual university. What is the law regarding international copyright of dictionaries? Can you really copyright a list of facts? Can I submit my iPhone Application to the App Store without any troubles? Would it make a difference if my app went out to the Dictionary's website and searched for a word rather than keeping a local database in my app? Will I have to retrieve a license from the university and pay them a certain share? Wow, that's a lot of questions. Let's just summarize by saying that if the university has a copyright in the content of the  Punjabi dictionary, your work is infringing. With the exception of GNU licensable dictionaries such as Wiktionary, dictionaries are typically protected by two types of copyright: a copyright for the original text expression in the definitions, and a compilation copyright for the collection of definitions. 
Facts. Facts. It's true that copyright doesn't protect facts but dictionary publishers would argue that writing dictionary definitions requires skill and unique phrasing. Even in those cases, when a definition is too short, or doesn't involve sufficient creativity, or is in the public domain, such definitions can still be protected as a group under the compilation copyright (and we assume that "compiling" a dictionary is different than having it "complied" -- see our cover above). As for linking to the online dictionary, that's a tough call. Like inlining or framing, it may be considered a copyright infringement. The university may also have a claim against you for unfair competition or similar statutes which make it illegal to pass off your work as that of someone else's. The real problem is more of a practical one -- whether you want a self contained app (that can also run on an iPod Touch without wifi) or one that is link-dependent.  As for international copyright rules, if the copyright is valid in a country that is a party to an international treaty, it can be enforced against you in the U.S. 
iPhones and Database Retrieval. According to the Dear Rich Staff If you don't have the rights to your content and you post it as an iPhone app, then Apple -- assuming it learns of the infringement --  would likely remove it and it would be buried in the iPhone App Graveyard.

To find out more about licensing, check out my book Getting Permission: How to License & Clear Copyrighted Materials Online & Off.
July 28, 2009

'Breaker Copies' and the First Sale Doctrine

FirstsaleBooks.jpgDear Rich: On many of the largest online book sites one can select a category called "breaker copy," a book that has been damaged such that it has little value to a collector, but it contains plates and or vintage prints which may then be removed and sold hence the name "breaker copy." There is a huge market for these prints on eBay and other auction sites. My question is, does this fall under the first sale rule or is it a copyright violation? The short answer is that the practice of breaking apart books and selling the components requires a long answer. The Dear Rich staff is sorry to have to drag you through the following sleep-inducing explanation but this area of the law is not fully settled.
What's the First Sale Doctrine?
The first sale doctrine guarantees you the right "to sell or otherwise dispose" of your books, movies and music, etc. But in two California cases, (Mirage and Greenwich Workshop) federal courts ruled that ripping out images from a book and reselling them in frames is not permitted under the first sale doctrine because the seller has created derivative works. A New York court seemed to agree with the California rulings, although that case involved a company that bought posters and then resold them after making them appear like oil paintings on canvas.
The Trouble with the California Cases
The trouble with the California cases is their theory about derivative works. Copyright scholar Melville Nimmer disagreed with it and some courts do not seem to follow it. One court  said that sticking something in a frame is a "mundane" act (don't tell that to these people) and doesn't demonstrate the minimum level of creativity required to create a derivative work.  An Illinois case (Deck the Wallsheld that the practice of cracking open a box of notecards and mounting them on tiles was permissible under the first sale doctrine (a ruling supported by a Texas case, C.M. Paula Co. v. Logancited by the Supreme Court).
What Should You Do?
In summary, you are likely to be headed for a problem if sued in California (or the 9th Circuit).  In other parts of the country, it's murkier. Copyright owners may threaten a lawsuit but not file, concerned they could set a bad precedent. One thing seems certain, you will always be more of a target if you are selling a lot of works by a particular artist -- for example, the collected works of Patrick Nagel vs. a collection of cubist art. And of course many works are in the public domain and you are free to reproduce those without any concerns about the pesky first sale doctrine.
May 13, 2009

Creating a Book of Public Domain Quotations

Lincoln-portrait.jpgDear Rich: I've noticed that there are a lot of quote books about Abraham Lincoln, Confucius, Albert Einstein, and other famous folks. If I wanted to write my own quote book for a famous person who lived before 1923, what is the best way to go about making sure I don't get sued? I'm so glad you asked. As Confucius says,"The cautious seldom err." You appear to be aware that 1923 is the magic year for the public domain. In the U.S., everything published before then is free to reproduce. Therefore, according to the Dear Rich staff (and the U.S. Supreme Court), the only way you will run into a problem using pre-1923 material is if you copy somebody else's original selection and organization of similar quotes. If you're not clear about all this -- like Confucious says, "The people may be made to follow, but they may not be made to understand," -- then check out Steve Fishman's great book on the PD.


September 17, 2007

Judges to Copyright Claimants: Do the Math

copyright_numbers.jpgNumber crunchers might enjoy two recently decided copyright cases. In Bensbargains.net, LLC v. XPBargains.com, a website (Bensbargains.net) compiled some of the best shopping deals on the web. A competitor (XPBargains.com) copied the Bensbargains deals. A California federal court held that the Bensbargains compilations were copyrightable and set a numerical (and novel) threshold of 70% for infringement--that is, infringement occurred if 70% of all Bensbargains deals appeared at the XPBargains site.

In a second case, New York Mercantile Exchange v. Intercontinental Exchange, the New York Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX") sought to enforce a copyright in its settlement prices -- numbers that are used when trading energy futures. NYMEX claimed copyright in these numbers (not in their compilation or collection). "Claimed" would be the key term, here since it's a basic premise of copyright law that protection won't be granted for individual numbers. (The Copyright Office refused the NYMEX registration.) Nevertheless, NYMEX pursued this lawsuit and lost. The court relied on the merger doctrine--a principle that copyright won't protect ideas when they're inseparable from the manner in which they're expressed.

For more about copyrightability and intellectual property law, pick up a copy of my book Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference (Nolo), now in its 9th edition.