You are right: copyright does not extend to ideas – only to the written words used to express an idea.   However, it is my opinion, and only an opinion, that integrity requires that credit be given where credit is due:  if someone did research and came up with some brilliant NEW theory, the next person who comes along *should*  give credit to the original author of the idea. “ According to”,  or “Mr. Smith pointed out, in such & such book…  the second espouser of the idea can then proceed to detail his research, theories, commentary, etc. This is what I was taught in school.  It was in our “Honor Code”, but it has never been law.

  As you say, ideas can’t be copyrighted.  Therefore textbooks don’t usually give credit for “facts”, or generally accepted ideas – which is what textbooks usually contain.  If a Science book gives 3 theories on creation and mentions the Bible, the exact edition is usually not given, on the theory that it is a widely known authority, without much variation.  If the text quoted a specific published edition, permission would be needed. When the text mentions the “Big Bang”, it might not give credit – or use specific text which needs a citation.  When they get down to String theory or the Theory of Everything,  quotes might be used to explain  a definition of a topic not widely understood.  You can bet that in the case where textbooks do quote a person exactly, permission was obtained to use the quote.  Credit may be given in a section of sources used, or the copyright owner didn’t require credit. The copyright owner has the right to set conditions of use.

  Fair Use is still used as criteria for using material without permission.  Interpretation of Fair use is still debated by lawyers.  A ”safe” interpretation is using “no more than 2 sentences”, without permission.  “Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission”. [copyright.gov]  Using material for educational purposes is listed [codified] as Fair Use.  However, courts have ruled that this means, a small segment of text can be used by students and teachers, without permission. What is a small segment is still debatable.  2 sentences is safe. A full paragraph may not be. Copying a page of a book is a violation of copyright.  Why risk trouble?  Get permission!

  I can’t speak to derivative works.  The subject is complicated, to say the least.  I also don’t understand enforcement of copyright, now that one can pay $100  to register a copyright for unfinished works that the author believes will be published.  Or for that matter,  I don’t understand  how enforceable, a copyright is,  in the real world,  it hasn’t been registered.  I thought I had learned in law courses that copyrights, not registered, were not enforceable.  Either I’m remembering wrong, or the law is kinder to the owner now.  Does anyone have recent experience with an attorney on enforcing a copyright which is unregistered?

  Langdon Hagen-Long



Nicholas Sturm <[log in to unmask]> wrote:  Although recent copyright laws appear to make it almost impossible for any
education to progress beyond the date they become operational, the writer
who recently wrote really seems to claim a far too great a simplification.

I do not seem to recall that ideas, so far as they are ideas, are subject
to U.S.A. copyright. Even after the work is fixed. What law is the basis
for that claim?...

I have seen a few fairly thoroughly documented advanced textbooks.
Strangely very few elementary or high school textbooks are significantly or
usefully documented. The same is true for most college or university
texts.....

Does the recent writer claim that all "fair use" has been eliminated by
recent laws?

Why no mention of the restrictions on producing derivative works? A
difficult field to define, but a very real one.




To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html