If you are wondering about a certain author, work, etc...

Here is the page where you can conduct searches to answer your curiosity on
current copyrights:

http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html



Also, here is the Copyrights' Office page of circulars to answer various
questions:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/



Regards,

John


--
I would like to point out, I do appreciate the "Been there--done that!"
posts. Indeed, now your observations, comments and discourse should be
filled with wisdom--I am listening!!!
"John Smith" wrote in message
...
To all:

It is my understanding that all gov't materials, since paid for by
taxpayers, are non-copyright.
Also, any material before 1923 would have expired copyrights and,
undoubtably, a significant amount of material will have been published
"public domain"; so, does anyone have a list of non-copyright materials
pertaining to antennas? Or, any ideas of how to obtain the information on
how to assemble one.
A website of non-copyright materials concerning antennas would be a great
asset to this community...

Regards,
John
--
I would like to point out, I do appreciate the "Been there--done that!"
posts. Indeed, now your observations, comments and discourse should be
filled with wisdom--I am listening!!!

I am just in the first stages of investigating this database myself. I am
not positive if I am interpreting the results correctly.
For example, I plugged Terman, Frederick, here is the result:

1. Registration Number: RE-187-468
Title: Electronic and radio engineering. By acFrederick E. Terman.
Edition: 4th ed.
Claimant: Frederick E. Terman (A)
Effective Registration Date: 2Dec83
Original Registration Date: 6Sep55;
Original Registration Number: A203084.
Original Class: A
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: "revisions and new material."

I am guessing, but this seems to confirm the materials' copyright expired on
12/2/83 and there was no renewal and it now lies in the realm of public
domain--but am looking how to confirm this. I can find no other mention of
this work in the database...
Perhaps others can provide their knowledge/observations?

Regards,
John

--
I would like to point out, I do appreciate the "Been there--done that!"
posts. Indeed, now your observations, comments and discourse should be
filled with wisdom--I am listening!!!
"John Smith" wrote in message
...
If you are wondering about a certain author, work, etc...

Here is the page where you can conduct searches to answer your curiosity
on current copyrights:

http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html



Also, here is the Copyrights' Office page of circulars to answer various
questions:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/



Regards,

John


--
I would like to point out, I do appreciate the "Been there--done that!"
posts. Indeed, now your observations, comments and discourse should be
filled with wisdom--I am listening!!!
"John Smith" wrote in message
...
To all:

It is my understanding that all gov't materials, since paid for by
taxpayers, are non-copyright.
Also, any material before 1923 would have expired copyrights and,
undoubtably, a significant amount of material will have been published
"public domain"; so, does anyone have a list of non-copyright materials
pertaining to antennas? Or, any ideas of how to obtain the information
on
how to assemble one.
A website of non-copyright materials concerning antennas would be a great
asset to this community...

Regards,
John
--
I would like to point out, I do appreciate the "Been there--done that!"
posts. Indeed, now your observations, comments and discourse should be
filled with wisdom--I am listening!!!

Actually, I correct myself again, it looks like Termans' book is expired
copyright, if you look closely at the post above and the field:
" Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: "revisions and new material." "
you will see that this entry is actually a NEW copyright work, and that the
copyright is limited to ONLY the "revisions and new material."
However, as this guy (corporation, company, business, individual, etc.) has
done, a person could duplicate the "original text" of Terman without
violation of copyright law, AND also tag on some "new revisions and new
material" just to obsfucate what has been done! and obtain a copyright on
the "revisions and new material"-- fooling some into believing the old text
was still copyrighted...
At least, from consulting with others who claim to be more familiar with
such, that is the conclusion I draw.
Anyone here with more information, or who can correct my mistaken
conclusion(s)?

Regards,
John
--
I would like to point out, I do appreciate the "Been there--done that!"
posts. Indeed, now your observations, comments and discourse should be
filled with wisdom--I am listening!!!
"John Smith" wrote in message
news
I am just in the first stages of investigating this database myself. I am
not positive if I am interpreting the results correctly.
For example, I plugged Terman, Frederick, here is the result:

1. Registration Number: RE-187-468
Title: Electronic and radio engineering. By acFrederick E. Terman.
Edition: 4th ed.
Claimant: Frederick E. Terman (A)
Effective Registration Date: 2Dec83
Original Registration Date: 6Sep55;
Original Registration Number: A203084.
Original Class: A
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: "revisions and new material."

I am guessing, but this seems to confirm the materials' copyright expired
on 12/2/83 and there was no renewal and it now lies in the realm of public
domain--but am looking how to confirm this. I can find no other mention
of this work in the database...
Perhaps others can provide their knowledge/observations?

Regards,
John

--
I would like to point out, I do appreciate the "Been there--done that!"
posts. Indeed, now your observations, comments and discourse should be
filled with wisdom--I am listening!!!
"John Smith" wrote in message
...
If you are wondering about a certain author, work, etc...

Here is the page where you can conduct searches to answer your curiosity
on current copyrights:

http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html



Also, here is the Copyrights' Office page of circulars to answer various
questions:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/



Regards,

John


--
I would like to point out, I do appreciate the "Been there--done that!"
posts. Indeed, now your observations, comments and discourse should be
filled with wisdom--I am listening!!!
"John Smith" wrote in message
...
To all:

It is my understanding that all gov't materials, since paid for by
taxpayers, are non-copyright.
Also, any material before 1923 would have expired copyrights and,
undoubtably, a significant amount of material will have been published
"public domain"; so, does anyone have a list of non-copyright materials
pertaining to antennas? Or, any ideas of how to obtain the information
on
how to assemble one.
A website of non-copyright materials concerning antennas would be a
great
asset to this community...

Regards,
John
--
I would like to point out, I do appreciate the "Been there--done that!"
posts. Indeed, now your observations, comments and discourse should be
filled with wisdom--I am listening!!!

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:51:30 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

Anyone here with more information, or who can correct my mistaken
conclusion(s)?

Hi Brett,

Read up on "Fair Use." Wholesale reproduction is not going to market
anywhere where it won't be perceived as just that. Further, it can't
economically compete with the used book trade in the marketplace.

Beyond that, extensive quotations for the purpose of bolstering
arguments or illustrating concepts will only act as a soporific.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

In the back of my mind I am picturing a library of collected works with
expired copyright/public domain/orphaned works...
Something akin to the gutenberg project, but not on such a large scale; but,
a technical library is what I imagine...
Surely there are more than just me which can see such a tool as a noble and
just cause.

Companies, corps, etc. I have worked for usually have a policy and make
known basic facts about "fair use" and how you can duplicate limited
portions as an aid to ones' own speechs, documents, study materials,
etc.--when giving the author(s) full credit...
I wish I had paid more attention, I tend to just digest material and
"reguritate" it in my own words and suppling my own pictures, charts,
diagrams, etc.-- that itself is so easy--why bother stealing anothers words?

However, a library of expired copyrights is really a tribute to the
individual(s) who have created the work(s), and is an important effort at
passing on learning, knowledge and wisdom--as such, its' very nature stands
alone as nobel cause...

Regards,
John

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:51:30 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

Anyone here with more information, or who can correct my mistaken
conclusion(s)?

Hi Brett,

Read up on "Fair Use." Wholesale reproduction is not going to market
anywhere where it won't be perceived as just that. Further, it can't
economically compete with the used book trade in the marketplace.

Beyond that, extensive quotations for the purpose of bolstering
arguments or illustrating concepts will only act as a soporific.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

Actually, I correct myself again, it looks like Termans' book is expired
copyright, if you look closely at the post above and the field:
" Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: "revisions and new material." "
you will see that this entry is actually a NEW copyright work, and that the
copyright is limited to ONLY the "revisions and new material."
However, as this guy (corporation, company, business, individual, etc.) has
done, a person could duplicate the "original text" of Terman without
violation of copyright law, AND also tag on some "new revisions and new
material" just to obsfucate what has been done! and obtain a copyright on
the "revisions and new material"-- fooling some into believing the old text
was still copyrighted...

At least, from consulting with others who claim to be more familiar with
such, that is the conclusion I draw.

That isn't necessarily due to any intent to obfuscate the situation.

US Copyright law says that if a work is in the public domain, the work
itself cannot be re-copyrighted. However, anyone can then create a
"derivative work", using the public-domain work as starting material,
and then copyright the resulting derivative work. If, for example,
you start with a black&white news photo which is in the public domain,
do some simple Photoshop or GIMP processing on it to colorize it (or
include it in a collage or photomontage) you can copyright your own
version of the photo. The original photo remains in the public
domain, while your version (with your creative effort) is now
copyrighted.

As another analogy, one could take the text of Moby Dick (in the
public domain and freely available on the Net) and run it through a
creatively-programmed "English to Valley-speak" or "English to Jive"
translation filter. The result would probably be copyrightable, if
rather silly.

There are, I believe, various legal rules-of-thumb to determine
whether the creative effort involved in making a derivative work is
sufficient to support its being placed under a new copyright.

It's very possible (almost certain, in fact) that the 1983 version of
Terman involved sufficient creative effort to revise and enhance the
text of the 1955 edition, to justify the new version having its own
copyright.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

My post was simply abreviated, but points out:
1) It is possible to "create" a "new" work from an expired-existing one.
2) Care should be taken NOT to confuse the fact that the actual copyright on
the EXISTING work has expired and the "author" actually has NO copyright on
what was/is the existing material in question (may be freely copied,
duplicated and disseminated as desired.)
3) Some may find a way to use this as a SCAM; also, those who have not
examined the workings of this system closely can be easily deceived into
what, exactly, the material is they are receiving.

It is also interesting to note that this is a work from 1955 with an expired
copyright. I think one is likely to find that technical material is more
quicker to be come dated and orphaned (becomes expired copyright) than most
all other books, documents, music, pics, etc...

Regards,
John

"Dave Platt" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Smith wrote:

Actually, I correct myself again, it looks like Termans' book is expired
copyright, if you look closely at the post above and the field:
" Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: "revisions and new material." "
you will see that this entry is actually a NEW copyright work, and that
the
copyright is limited to ONLY the "revisions and new material."
However, as this guy (corporation, company, business, individual, etc.)
has
done, a person could duplicate the "original text" of Terman without
violation of copyright law, AND also tag on some "new revisions and new
material" just to obsfucate what has been done! and obtain a copyright on
the "revisions and new material"-- fooling some into believing the old
text
was still copyrighted...

At least, from consulting with others who claim to be more familiar with
such, that is the conclusion I draw.

That isn't necessarily due to any intent to obfuscate the situation.

US Copyright law says that if a work is in the public domain, the work
itself cannot be re-copyrighted. However, anyone can then create a
"derivative work", using the public-domain work as starting material,
and then copyright the resulting derivative work. If, for example,
you start with a black&white news photo which is in the public domain,
do some simple Photoshop or GIMP processing on it to colorize it (or
include it in a collage or photomontage) you can copyright your own
version of the photo. The original photo remains in the public
domain, while your version (with your creative effort) is now
copyrighted.

As another analogy, one could take the text of Moby Dick (in the
public domain and freely available on the Net) and run it through a
creatively-programmed "English to Valley-speak" or "English to Jive"
translation filter. The result would probably be copyrightable, if
rather silly.

There are, I believe, various legal rules-of-thumb to determine
whether the creative effort involved in making a derivative work is
sufficient to support its being placed under a new copyright.

It's very possible (almost certain, in fact) that the 1983 version of
Terman involved sufficient creative effort to revise and enhance the
text of the 1955 edition, to justify the new version having its own
copyright.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!