View Single Post
Old 06-24-2011, 11:32 AM   #23
HarryT
eBook Enthusiast
HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
HarryT's Avatar
 
Posts: 85,557
Karma: 93980341
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by koland View Post
The individual stories may be in the public domain, but the collection would not be - it would be copyrighted for standard life+ of the author (according to laws in his country and yours).
You're talking about a "compilation copyright", I assume. In this case, I doubt it, given that it appears to be a pretty arbitrary selection:

http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/compilation.htm

Quote:
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. “The point was emphasized with regard to compilations to ensure that courts would not repeat the mistake of the ‘sweat of the brow’ courts by concluding that fact-based works are treated differently and measured by some other standard.” (Feist) The Congressional goal was to “ ‘make plain that the criteria of copyrightable subject matter... apply with full force to works... containing preexisting material.’” (Feist)

The Supreme Court, in reviewing the law, has concluded “that the statute envisions that there will be some fact-based works in which the selection, coordination, and arrangement are not sufficiently original to trigger copyright protection” (Feist) in any way at all.
I rather doubt that the originality involved in the selection, coordination, and arrangement of these stories is sufficient to satisfy the criteria for a compilation copyright.
HarryT is offline   Reply With Quote