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!