Re: Copyright of previous public domain

[David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>]

What you see as 

> an attempt by both parties to
> agree upon benign language now, to get the license executed,

I see as an attempt by one party to claim rights they do not own. 

I could sell you all the rights I have to all the houses on my block. I do
own one house, and the contract would I suppose be effective for it. If I
have previously misled you to think I have some rights in the others, and
you have paid me on that basis, one doesn't have to be a lawyer to know an
appropriate category for what I've done. If the total price I ask is fair
for my own house, then it _is_ a question for a lawyer. I do know that if
I try to sell property on this basis, most prudent people would think it
unwise to buy from me.

For general background on database protection, a good place to start is a
posting on this list from the ALA
http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0208/msg00071.html (see
item 2)  But I do agree that the appropriate rights in a database do or
should depend on the details of the content of the database.

"rrhoon.mail.ncsu.edu" wrote:

> I'm certain Shirley is correct; I weighed in without being aware of the
> packaging or presentation of the content. Trying to subject the
> limitations recited in the license to applicable copyright law really
> serves to defer a definitive determination on the protections or status of
> the content vis a vis copyright.  It is an attempt by both parties to
> agree upon benign language now, to get the license executed, while banking
> on the fact that either the issue will likely never become justicable, or
> if it does, it will be decided in their favor.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Shirley Lambert" <SLambert@scarecrowpress.com>
> To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 7:57 AM
> Subject: Re: Copyright of previous public domain
> 
> > I think the issue here might be the copyright on the format of the
> > material rather than on the content itself. The vendor has spent the money
> > to digitize and presumably index the material, and the argument can be
> > made that such effort is protected.
> >
> > --
> > Shirley Lambert
> > Scarecrow Press