On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 16:13:55 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Walter Maxwell wrote:

Hasn't the copyright expired on material published in 1937?

Hm. The way I read http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hlc, it
has. It looks to me like the original copyright was good for 28 years
and for copyrights originally issued in 1937, renewal (if done) was good
for another 28. That would put it in the public domain after 1993. I'd
sure appreciate comments from someone who's actually familiar with the
law -- it's pretty convoluted and I'm not at all confident about my
interpretation.

True it gets very complicated, especially when the likes of Disney get
an act through Congress to copyright Mickey Mouse forever.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/comment..._sprigman.html

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court was not interested in the
constitutional aspects of this monstrosity and let it stand.

The average citizen can afford to bribe his local officials (democracy
in action), but when it comes to Congress, you need real money.

Publish the paper Walt, the authors are all gone (I think, but you
know better than I) the IRE is gone too; what are they going to do,
come back from the grave and sue you?

Wes Stewart wrote:
. . .
Publish the paper Walt, the authors are all gone (I think, but you
know better than I) the IRE is gone too; what are they going to do,
come back from the grave and sue you?

The authors didn't own the copyright. (If they did, it would be the
property of their heirs if still valid.) But the IRE isn't gone -- it
merged with the IEE, back in the '60s as I recall, to become the IEEE.
If the copyright is valid, they're its owner. And they might sue.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:56:52 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Wes Stewart wrote:
. . .
Publish the paper Walt, the authors are all gone (I think, but you
know better than I) the IRE is gone too; what are they going to do,
come back from the grave and sue you?

The authors didn't own the copyright. (If they did, it would be the
property of their heirs if still valid.) But the IRE isn't gone -- it
merged with the IEE, back in the '60s as I recall, to become the IEEE.
If the copyright is valid, they're its owner. And they might sue.

All true, but...

Suppose that the IEEE has a staff of lawyers sitting around picking
their collective noses and they get wind of some ham (who actually
knew the authors) posting a copy of a document published in 1937 and
practically incorporated by reference in every FCC licensed broadcast
station's proof of performance.

They can't prove any financial harm, except maybe they didn't sell a
copy of the document for $25 and even at that there is some
possibility that the usage is "fair" in that it's for "research
purposes", do you think they will sue?

Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Limitations on exclusive
rights: Fair Use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair
use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in
copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in that
section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship,
or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:56:52 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Wes Stewart wrote:
. . .
Publish the paper Walt, the authors are all gone (I think, but you
know better than I) the IRE is gone too; what are they going to do,
come back from the grave and sue you?

The authors didn't own the copyright. (If they did, it would be the
property of their heirs if still valid.) But the IRE isn't gone -- it
merged with the IEE, back in the '60s as I recall, to become the IEEE.
If the copyright is valid, they're its owner. And they might sue.

All true, but...

Suppose that the IEEE has a staff of lawyers sitting around picking
their collective noses and they get wind of some ham (who actually
knew the authors) posting a copy of a document published in 1937 and
practically incorporated by reference in every FCC licensed broadcast
station's proof of performance.

They can't prove any financial harm, except maybe they didn't sell a
copy of the document for $25 and even at that there is some
possibility that the usage is "fair" in that it's for "research
purposes", do you think they will sue?

Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Limitations on exclusive
rights: Fair Use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair
use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in
copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in that
section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship,
or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Seems to me, Wes, that our use on the group could be considered criticism,
comment and teaching. So far I haven't received anything from the library, so
we'll see what happens.

Walt

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:37:34 -0400, "Walter Maxwell"
wrote:

Seems to me, Wes, that our use on the group could be considered criticism,
comment and teaching. So far I haven't received anything from the library, so
we'll see what happens.

Hi Walt,

Do you have a BailPal account that we can chip into?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:37:34 -0400, "Walter Maxwell"
wrote:

Seems to me, Wes, that our use on the group could be considered criticism,
comment and teaching. So far I haven't received anything from the library, so
we'll see what happens.

Hi Walt,

Do you have a BailPal account that we can chip into?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Sorry Richard I don't know what a BailPal is. Or are you yankin my leg? Or on
the other hand are you being a compassionate soul in case I get sued?

In the meantime I've only had a short time to review the Mathcad info, but I'll
have some questions on it for you shortly.

Walt