Can a public domain military manual be "copyrighted" by a private person?
Ignoramus7361
of them are produced with taxpayer money and are in public
domain. Most of those are not secret and are generally available to
the public.
Unfortunately, as they go, many are hard to find and there is a
cottage industry of CDROM sellers and spammy websites that charge
money for PDF copies of those manuals.
Needing one manual or another from time to time, I appreciate how
difficult it has become to find a genuine manual for a free and easy
download.
I would like to change all of this, and offer them all on my website,
completely for free, and provide a BitTorrent download to get them
all, so they could be reposted elsewhere amd become more available to
the general public.
I looked at a few "Sets of manuals on DVDs" that are offered for sale,
and saw the following statement:
``As we are the sole creators, manufacturers and distributors of this
product we hold legal copyright to the product and its
contents. Products are produced in-house using state of the art
duplication techniques and conforms and is in compliance with any and
all policies that may apply regarding the sale of media on recordable
formats and buyers may not reproduce, copy or resell under any
circumstances as materials are watermarked and protected. Some manuals
may not include covers. THE ULTIMATE ARMY TECHNICAL MANUALS DISK SET
IS COPYRIGHTED 1993-2010 WWW.<DVD SELLER STORE>.COM. NO SALES TO
DEALERS OR SELLERS.''
I would like to know how can they claim to hold "legal copyright" to
documents that are in public domain.
Secondly, if I purchase a set from them, can they rely on contract
theory to prohibit me from reproducing their manuals? As in, could
they say that by purchasing the item, I agreed to their terms, and not
allow me to publish them online?
Thirdly, if the contract theory can be used to prohibit me from
reoffering their content, can I have someone else buy the set, and
then give it to me as a gift, with no strings attached?
Again, I am not looking to resell a DVD set that I purchase from
someone. I intend to distribute those public domain manuals for free
online.
I do have money and if, say, I am forced to spend $20k on lawyers, it
would be disappointing to me, but it will not lead me to financial
ruin.
i
Stuart A. Bronstein
> The US government (military) has published many technical
> manuals. All of them are produced with taxpayer money and are in
> public domain. Most of those are not secret and are generally
> available to the public.
>
> I would like to change all of this, and offer them all on my
> website, completely for free, and provide a BitTorrent download
> to get them all, so they could be reposted elsewhere amd become
> more available to the general public.
>
> I looked at a few "Sets of manuals on DVDs" that are offered for
> sale, and saw the following statement:
>
> ``As we are the sole creators, manufacturers and distributors of
> this product we hold legal copyright to the product and its
> contents. '
>
> I would like to know how can they claim to hold "legal
> copyright" to documents that are in public domain.
They don't. But they may hold the copyright to the format or how it
is presented, if different from the original. If you have the
original manuals and scan them in, you don't have to worry about
their claims.
> Secondly, if I purchase a set from them, can they rely on
> contract theory to prohibit me from reproducing their manuals?
Depends. What's the contract and how is it formed?
> As in, could they say that by purchasing the item, I agreed to
> their terms, and not allow me to publish them online?
If it's that alone it's unlikely, though possible depending on the
circumstances.
> Thirdly, if the contract theory can be used to prohibit me from
> reoffering their content, can I have someone else buy the set,
> and then give it to me as a gift, with no strings attached?
No.
Chances are you're ok. But your obtaining and copying the originals
is your best bet.
Mike Jacobs
wrote:
> The US government (military) has published many technical manuals. All
> of them are produced with taxpayer money and are in public
> domain. Most of those are not secret and are generally available to
> the public.
In paper form, that is. Unless the government printing office (GPO)
has started issuing those manuals in CD form themselves - if so, go
ahead and copy the government-issued CDs digitally.
> Unfortunately, as they go, many are hard to find and there is a
> cottage industry of CDROM sellers and spammy websites that charge
> money for PDF copies of those manuals.
The person who compiled the CD put original work into making that
compilation of public-domain materials for you. Perhaps they created
an index or table of contents, or added a digitized search function,
or other value-added features. That part of the CD-creation effort is
copyrightable, although no claim is made as to the public domain
materials themselves (the words, or the original images). Also, I am
not completely sure (I am not a copyright lawyer), but I believe the
conversion of the printed-page materials into digital form is itself
copyrightable - no two scans are exactly alike, after all, just like
no two photos are exactly alike -- and scanning printed material into
digital form essentialy just amounts to taking a digital photo of it
with a large, flat, slow-shutter-speed, desk-mounted camera <g>
> Needing one manual or another from time to time, I appreciate how
> difficult it has become to find a genuine manual for a free and easy
> download.
Which is why the compilers of these CDs claim, and are entitled to
claim, copy protection for their digital compilations.
> I would like to change all of this, and offer them all on my website,
> completely for free,
If you get ahold of the original government manuals, and scan them
yourself, you are certainly entitled to post _your_own_ copyrightable
digital transformation of these materials, licensed by you for free
personal use by your website visitors, _or_ to completely waive your
copyright and place your compilation of those materials itself into
the public domain so _others_ can reproduce them and post them on
_their_ websites to boost _their_ internet traffic count.
What you cannot legally do is, post someone _else's_ digital
compilation and distribute it without _their_ permission.
> and provide a BitTorrent download to get them all,
There's nothing wrong _per_se_ with using BitTorrent as a distribution
device, but that has nothing directly to do with the copyright issue.
> so they could be reposted elsewhere amd become more available to
> the general public.
Thereby causing great harm to the business model of the people who
actually put their own time and work into compiling the digital
versions of those government papers which you now want to be able to
copy freely just by pushing a button.
> I looked at a few "Sets of manuals on DVDs" that are offered for sale,
> and saw the following statement:
>
> ``As we are the sole creators, manufacturers and distributors of this
> product we hold legal copyright to the product and its
> contents. Products are produced in-house using state of the art
> duplication techniques and conforms and is in compliance with any and
> all policies that may apply regarding the sale of media on recordable
> formats and buyers may not reproduce, copy or resell under any
> circumstances as materials are watermarked and protected. Some manuals
> may not include covers. THE ULTIMATE ARMY TECHNICAL MANUALS DISK SET
> IS COPYRIGHTED 1993-2010 WWW.<DVD SELLER STORE>.COM. NO SALES TO
> DEALERS OR SELLERS.''
>
> I would like to know how can they claim to hold "legal copyright" to
> documents that are in public domain.
They don't. What they own the copyright on is their own scanned and
digitized version of the original, paper public domain document.
That part is copyrightable. Note that the copyrighted version is
_not_identical_ to the raw paper version because it includes the CD
compiler's digital watermark as part of the image in each page - even
apart from the above considerations, that is a _different_ photocopy,
a _different_ product, than the public-domain original.
> Secondly, if I purchase a set from them, can they rely on contract
> theory to prohibit me from reproducing their manuals? As in, could
> they say that by purchasing the item, I agreed to their terms, and not
> allow me to publish them online?
Hey, you said it, not me. But it sounds like another plausible
theory they could rely on.
> Thirdly, if the contract theory can be used to prohibit me from
> reoffering their content, can I have someone else buy the set, and
> then give it to me as a gift, with no strings attached?
No, because the copyright theory still attaches.
They can't prevent you from re-selling, or gifting, the actual CD (the
physical medium on which the data are encoded, together with the data
thereon) to others, but they _can_ bar you from making _other_ copies
of the same data onto other media, including making it available as an
online torrent or bitstream.
> Again, I am not looking to resell a DVD set that I purchase from
> someone. I intend to distribute those public domain manuals for free
> online.
Your profit motive, or lack thereof, is irrelevant, except maybe as to
the additional damages that may be claimed against you, forcing you to
disgorge such illegal profits. You would still be liable for the
business loss you caused to the original CD compiler.
> I do have money and if, say, I am forced to spend $20k on lawyers, it
> would be disappointing to me, but it will not lead me to financial
> ruin.
A seriously fought copyright suit is going to cost you a _lot_more_
than $20k. Trust me, that's just enough to get you _started_. You
are probably talking hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Gordon Burditt
> The US government (military) has published many technical manuals. All
> of them are produced with taxpayer money and are in public
> domain. Most of those are not secret and are generally available to
> the public.
>
> Unfortunately, as they go, many are hard to find and there is a
> cottage industry of CDROM sellers and spammy websites that charge
> money for PDF copies of those manuals.
One way to do what you want to do is to obtain the (paper) manual
yourself, and scan it yourself. You'd be 100% in the clear that
way.
If you did that, would you put on your own copyright prohibiting
people (e.g. spammy websites) from selling copies?
> Needing one manual or another from time to time, I appreciate how
> difficult it has become to find a genuine manual for a free and easy
> download.
>
> I would like to change all of this, and offer them all on my website,
> completely for free, and provide a BitTorrent download to get them
> all, so they could be reposted elsewhere amd become more available to
> the general public.
I do not think the fact that you are giving away copies (as
distinguished from selling them) helps you in terms of whether you
are infringing copyright. It might reduce claimed damages.
> I looked at a few "Sets of manuals on DVDs" that are offered for sale,
> and saw the following statement:
>
> ``As we are the sole creators, manufacturers and distributors of this
> product we hold legal copyright to the product and its
> contents. Products are produced in-house using state of the art
> duplication techniques and conforms and is in compliance with any and
> all policies that may apply regarding the sale of media on recordable
> formats and buyers may not reproduce, copy or resell under any
> circumstances as materials are watermarked and protected. Some manuals
> may not include covers. THE ULTIMATE ARMY TECHNICAL MANUALS DISK SET
> IS COPYRIGHTED 1993-2010 WWW.<DVD SELLER STORE>.COM. NO SALES TO
> DEALERS OR SELLERS.''
I think this statement is a blatant lie as far as their being "sole
creators", assuming that they did not write the manuals in question,
but just scanned and converted them. Copyright requires a certain
amount of originality and creativity to allow you to claim a
derivative-work copyright on someone else's work, which is a reason
why telephone directory listings are not copyrightable (but the
display ads are likely copyrightable by their creators, which is
probably not the telephone company, but the business taking out the
ad). On the other hand, translation to another language is enough
to claim copyright, I believe. So would colorization of movies.
If they went to the effort of creating a PDF index or table of
contents that did not exist in the original documents, or adding
hyperlinks (which didn't exist in paper copies), they could claim
copyright on that.
Summary: I'm not sure, and I think for anyone to be sure they'd
have to see the original manual and the PDF.
> I would like to know how can they claim to hold "legal copyright" to
> documents that are in public domain.
If they add something to the document (like translation to another
language), they can. It is also possible to claim a "compilation
copyright" on a collection of things even though they have no rights
to the individual things. (The original author retains his copyright,
too, if there is one, but that doesn't apply in your case.)
You cannot copyright facts, but you can copyright your arrangement and
presentation of the facts.
> Secondly, if I purchase a set from them, can they rely on contract
> theory to prohibit me from reproducing their manuals? As in, could
> they say that by purchasing the item, I agreed to their terms, and not
> allow me to publish them online?
Yes, I think they could.
> Thirdly, if the contract theory can be used to prohibit me from
> reoffering their content, can I have someone else buy the set, and
> then give it to me as a gift, with no strings attached?
Courts might see through this as a sham, especially if they saw a
copy of your post made before you did it.
> Again, I am not looking to resell a DVD set that I purchase from
> someone. I intend to distribute those public domain manuals for free
> online.
Sell, give away, what's the difference? In terms of copyright
infringement, I don't think there is any. In terms of contract,
there isn't any (given the statement quoted above). In terms of
damages, there likely would be.
> I do have money and if, say, I am forced to spend $20k on lawyers, it
> would be disappointing to me, but it will not lead me to financial
> ruin.
How about if you were forced to spend $20k *and* quit distributing
the manuals?
deadrat
There are two possible explanations. 1) the First Amendment. They are
perfectly free to claim what they want. The real question is whether the
claim is valid. 2) They have added something copyrightable of their own
to the manuals. (At the very least, they claim to have added a
watermark.) In that case, their formatting is copyrighted, but the words
aren't.
> Secondly, if I purchase a set from them, can they rely on contract
> theory to prohibit me from reproducing their manuals? As in, could
> they say that by purchasing the item, I agreed to their terms, and not
> allow me to publish them online?
What makes you think your purchase is a contract?
> Thirdly, if the contract theory can be used to prohibit me from
> reoffering their content, can I have someone else buy the set, and
> then give it to me as a gift, with no strings attached?
So now you've conspired to violate their copyright?
<snip/>
Keith
Ignoramus7361 <ignora...@NOSPAM.7361.invalid> wrote:
> I would like to know how can they claim to hold "legal copyright" to
> documents that are in public domain.
Their rendition and production of the manual is copyrighted. As long
as you obtain the original manual from the Government and there is no
copyright then you can make your own version of the document with
copyright or public domain and any type of license you want.
--
Best Regards, Keith
http://home.comcast.net/~kilowattradio/
Robert Bonomi
>of them are produced with taxpayer money and are in public
>domain.
Correct. the ORIGINAL WORKS are not protected by copyright.
> Most of those are not secret and are generally available to
>the public.
True.
>Unfortunately, as they go, many are hard to find and there is a
>cottage industry of CDROM sellers and spammy websites that charge
>money for PDF copies of those manuals.
Yup. They've done the work to ferret out those 'hard to find' materials
and _should_ be recompensed for that work effort.
>
>Needing one manual or another from time to time, I appreciate how
>difficult it has become to find a genuine manual for a free and easy
>download.
>
>I would like to change all of this, and offer them all on my website,
>completely for free, and provide a BitTorrent download to get them
>all, so they could be reposted elsewhere amd become more available to
>the general public.
>
>I looked at a few "Sets of manuals on DVDs" that are offered for sale,
>and saw the following statement:
>
>``As we are the sole creators, manufacturers and distributors of this
>product we hold legal copyright to the product and its
>contents. Products are produced in-house using state of the art
>duplication techniques and conforms and is in compliance with any and
>all policies that may apply regarding the sale of media on recordable
>formats and buyers may not reproduce, copy or resell under any
>circumstances as materials are watermarked and protected. Some manuals
>may not include covers. THE ULTIMATE ARMY TECHNICAL MANUALS DISK SET
>IS COPYRIGHTED 1993-2010 WWW.<DVD SELLER STORE>.COM. NO SALES TO
>DEALERS OR SELLERS.''
>
>I would like to know how can they claim to hold "legal copyright" to
>documents that are in public domain.
They cannot do what you (mis-)state they claim to do.
They can and *DO* hold a copyright on the 'derivative works' that they
have produced from the original public-domain works.
You cannot distribute/reproduce something _based_on_ their derivative work,
*without*their*permission/consent*, without infringing on their legal and
valid copyright.
Now, _if_ you get a copy of a manual that is *not* derived from their work,
you *can* use =that= copy w/o infringing on what they claim copyright on.
>Secondly, if I purchase a set from them, can they rely on contract
>theory to prohibit me from reproducing their manuals? As in, could
>they say that by purchasing the item, I agreed to their terms, and not
>allow me to publish them online?
Yes, they can use that -- _as_well_as_ their legitimate copyright rights.
>
>Thirdly, if the contract theory can be used to prohibit me from
>reoffering their content, can I have someone else buy the set, and
>then give it to me as a gift, with no strings attached?
No. they cannot 'give' you what they do not, _themselves_, posses. Since
they do not posses the right to publish,
>Again, I am not looking to resell a DVD set that I purchase from
>someone. I intend to distribute those public domain manuals for free
>online.
Doesn't matter, with regard to the _fact_ of copyright infringement.
Is significant _only_ in the calculation of the amount of damages you will
have to pay the copyright owners.
>I do have money and if, say, I am forced to spend $20k on lawyers, it
>would be disappointing to me, but it will not lead me to financial
>ruin.
Legal fees for defending a copyright infringement suit all the way through
trial are more likely to be in the half-a-million-dollar range PLUS the
amount of the judgment(s) you'd have to pay if/when the trial goes against
you. And _if_ you do win, it is *very* unlikely that you will be able to
recoup your legal expenses from the other party.
All you have to do to be 'legal' is do the same thing those CDROM publishers
did. Do the work to find an _original_ government-produced copy of each of
those manuals. You can use *those* manuals in any way you please, *without*
infringing on the copyrights held by the various CDROM producers.
nos...@isp.com
wrote:
> The US government (military) has published many technical
> manuals. All of them are produced with taxpayer money
> and are in public domain. Most of those are not secret and
> are generally available to the public.
Most are in the public domain, not all. Some portions of U.S.
military and other U.S. governmental agency publications may be
copyright protected work of another author that is included by way of
a limited assignment or license.
You also are not entirely clear in what you go on to say below about
whether you intend your parenthetical qualification above to apply to
all the materials you want to copy and publish, i.e., whether you
refer only to publicly available U.S. military manuals and related
materials in the public domain and not to copyright protected works of
the U.S. Dept. of Commerce or U.S. Postal Service.
Assuming you refer to original source works that are in the public
domain -- and, again, your posting's sparsely stated facts enable only
a presumption to such effect -- there might be any number of
explanations.
One could be the only one you seem to imply -- i.e., that that
commercial publisher/distributor hasn't heard of or in any event does
not subscribe in its practices to the ethics lesson sought to be
taught by the retelling of the mythical story of Geo. Washington's
inability to tell a lie and so Just Makes Sh*t Up.
Another could be that it believes what it says in the quoted notice
but is mistaken.
And (especially if you read the notice you quote carefully) still
another might be that it edited and (re)arranged and indexed and
otherwise creatively embellished the underlying public domain material
reproduced in what it terms "the product" -- that is, its CDROM or DVD
in question and compiled "the product" qualifies for copyright
protection as a new compilation or derivative work.
One cannot tell only from what you say which of these alternatives is
probably closest to what pertains to the DVD and CDROM publisher whose
notice you quote.
> Secondly, if I purchase a set from them, can they rely on
> contract theory to prohibit me from reproducing their manuals?
> As in, could they say that by purchasing the item, I agreed to
> their terms, and not allow me to publish them online?
>
These questions in effect raise (among others) these related question
which, however, you do not answer in your posting:
If the materials you propose to publish are in the public
domain as you say (and as I posit arguendo for the purposes of this
question), why do you not obtain them directly from the U.S. military
branches or other federal governmental agencies of interest to you
then copy them yourself from those original sources compared with you
copying from (to quote the above notice) "the product" of the
commercial publisher to which you refer?
What is the substance of "contract theory" you hypothesize
in terms of whether you refer to some sort of unilateral attempt by
that DVD/CDROM publisher to impose a so-called "shrink wrap" license
or whether you will have signed a written agreement and, in any event,
what are all the material terms/provisions thereof what would be
claimed by that publisher to be redressable as against you?
(And see further comment re. the second of these questions in response
to your below stated willingness to budget and spend +/- $20K to try
to vindicate what you say are your entirely non-fee/public-interested
goals.)
> Thirdly, if the contract theory can be used to prohibit me
> from reoffering their content, can I have someone else buy
> the set, and then give it to me as a gift, with no strings attached?
This is substantially less a question of law than a practical one
which, as such, enables only speculation dependent (and as it probably
would be fair to guess you suppose already) on answers to these sorts
of questions:
Will the publisher whose product you copy and reproduce or
otherwise make available on or via your web site learn of the source?
If so, will it make an adverse claim?
If it does, will you then be probably able to achieve a
compromise or, if not, will it have and be willing to devote
sufficient financial resources to try to learn of then try to prove
your and your friend's ruse (re. which, cf. the crazed Mr. Holder's
and his boss' effort reported yesterday to use processes of law to
compel Twitter and maybe Google and various other internet service
providers to blow the whistle on the Wikileaks whistle blowers)?
Etc., etc. . . . .
You apparently assume -- and, possibly, it might be correct for you to
assume -- litigation is unlikely to eventuate if you do what you
contemplate and, even if it does, that the plaintiff will be unwilling
or unable at a cost it determines reasonable in its own self-defined
self-interest not to discover what you here posit as a "straw man"
ruse which may be difficult to detect (also assuming that, in such
case, you and your gift-giving friend will decide that the risk of
perjury being detected is negligible if other not now knowable "if"s
were to occur not least including decisions by a party that might not
become a party determining what is/isn't in its self-interest).
>
> Again, I am not looking to resell a DVD set that I purchase
> from someone. I intend to distribute those public domain
> manuals for free online. I do have money and if, say, I am
> forced to spend $20k on lawyers, it would be disappointing
> to me, but it will not lead me to financial ruin.
Another question this latter factoid raises but does not answer is
whether it would (or wouldn't) make practical sense to try (and, if
so, how probably most effectively for you to try) to negotiate a
without prejudice license (i.e., even if you don't want to acknowledge
that your commercial source's "the product" is copyright protected in
whole or in part, purchase immunity from litigation).
Meanwhile, the Copyright Act and judicial decisions
construing/applying requires that copyright infringement lawsuits be
prosecuted exclusively in a U.S. federal district court having
jurisdiction of the defendant.
More or less generally speaking ("more or less" only because there are
potential but limited/narrow qualifications depending on facts you
don't post), the courts are unsympathetic to an effort by a plaintiff
whose underlying grievance essentially is copyright infringement but
who tries an end run against suing on a contract theory (whether in
state court in the first instance or perhaps as an
alternative/cummulative claim in federal court).
But for the reasons already summarized above, there is no way anyone
can say that the budget you have in mind is/isn't overly generous or
sufficient or maybe substantially understated IF litigation eventuates
and IF the plaintiff has and is willing to devote the economic means
to its effort IF it is otherwise (even if maybe mistakenly or
perversely) motivated to do so.
And also IF the CDROM/DVD publisher to which you refer or some
comparable one does sue for copyright infringement on a derivative
work or compilation theory, where it sues (still another factor you do
not and cannot know now) can become important. E.g., if in the 8th
circuit or a jurisdiction who follows that circuit's version of
arguably (plaintiff) "liberal" law there arising from the Mead Data v.
West Pub. Co. ruling which the Supremes declined to review might be
persuasive, depending on facts you haven't yet posted, and, if in the
2nd circuit or places influenced by the law there, that court's
rulings West Pub. Co. litigations with Matthew Bender and Hyperlaw,
which arguably are "defendant friendly" (to some extent) might be more
persuasive.
Holly Dawson James
Holly
Stuart O. Bronstein
> soldiers to speak Japanese, so their could communicate. I think it
> was 11 books in total, I think I paid $10.00 each. I am a junk
> journalist, I tear about old books and repurpose. (I know, don't
> yell at me) Holly
government bookstore in real life or on line, you pay for those
publications. And they are not cheap.
Next, someone can republish a book that is in the public domain and
claim to copyright it. But the copyright only applies to new
material that was added, such as a table or contents or index. They
can't protect material that was in the public domain.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Rick
news:XnsAF95925CBE0CF...@130.133.4.11...
the Warren Report on the assassination of President Kennedy. Almost
immediately, there were numerous versions of the report offered for sale by
many legit publishers, all with their own introductions or prefaces that
they copyrighted, and all over-priced. I bought the Government Printing
Office version for something like $3.50 and was perfectly fine with it.
The strangest example occurred a few years later when the government
published a report on Obscenity and Pornography. I don't recall the price,
but it was about the size of the Warren Report - something like 650 or 700
pages. The book was all text and was a summary of the findings on the
Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. Inevitably, a company
came along and published what they called the Illustrated Report on
Obscenity and Pornography (or something like that), and it had the exact
text of the government report but with actual pictures to show examples of
pornography. At the time it came out, many people thought the book itself
was an example of pornography, but I'm pretty sure it's still in print today
and can be found on eBay and Amazon. Point is, it's another example of
taking a public domain document and adding an external element.
--
Barry Gold
> First, US government publications are not free. If you go to a US
> government bookstore in real life or on line, you pay for those
> publications. And they are not cheap.
>
> Next, someone can republish a book that is in the public domain and
> claim to copyright it. But the copyright only applies to new
> material that was added, such as a table or contents or index. They
> can't protect material that was in the public domain.
printing it, plus a profit to keep the GPO in business.
AFAIK, all materials published by the US Government,and everything
produced as a work made for hire for the US Government, is in the public
domain. (Classified material excepted)
--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...
Barry Gold
> government bookstore in real life or on line, you pay for those
> publications. And they are not cheap.
>
> Next, someone can republish a book that is in the public domain and
> claim to copyright it. But the copyright only applies to new
> material that was added, such as a table or contents or index. They
> can't protect material that was in the public domain.
mechanical transform from the original book. THere needs to be a
"creative spark" to make something copyrightable.
Barry Gold
> The strangest example occurred a few years later when the government
> published a report on Obscenity and Pornography. I don't recall the price,
> but it was about the size of the Warren Report - something like 650 or 700
> pages. The book was all text and was a summary of the findings on the
> Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. Inevitably, a
> company
> came along and published what they called the Illustrated Report on
> Obscenity and Pornography (or something like that), and it had the exact
> text of the government report but with actual pictures to show examples of
> pornography. At the time it came out, many people thought the book itself
> was an example of pornography, but I'm pretty sure it's still in print
> today
> and can be found on eBay and Amazon. Point is, it's another example of
> taking a public domain document and adding an external element.
government decided that the added pictures made it obscene and put him
in prison for a few years. He moved to Mexico when he got out.
Stuart O. Bronstein
> AFAIK, all materials published by the US Government,and everything
> produced as a work made for hire for the US Government, is in the
> public domain. (Classified material excepted)
respect to publications issued by their governments.
Roy
distribution and possession is restricted as needed. I have a FOIA
request now for a book I wrote fifty years ago while in the military.
The SECRET classification should be expiring this year.
Barry Gold
somehow came home with a couple of the training manuals from radar
school. They were marked "British: Secret, US: Confidential". Acto my
father, there was a rule that enlisted men could not have Secret
clearances, so the manuals had to have a lower classification in the US.
I read them. There was nothing in them that you wouldn't find in the
ARRL publications: Ohm's law, calculating impedance for capacitors and
inductors, Kirchhoff's circuit laws.
The only reason I can think of for classifying them is that they may
have had the word "RADAR".
Roy
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 22:31:03 -0800, Barry Gold wrote:
>
>>
>>> ...
>> Interesting side note. My father was a radar technician in WWII. He
>> somehow came home with a couple of the training manuals from radar
>> school. They were marked "British: Secret, US: Confidential". Acto my
>> father, there was a rule that enlisted men could not have Secret
>> clearances, so the manuals had to have a lower classification in the US.
>>
>> I read them. There was nothing in them that you wouldn't find in the
>> ARRL publications: Ohm's law, calculating impedance for capacitors and
>> inductors, Kirchhoff's circuit laws.
>>
>> The only reason I can think of for classifying them is that they may
>> have had the word "RADAR".
>
> engineering.
>
> I still await a test of the doctrine of "natural born secret" - which
> seems a peculiar US concept. But then this is the country that managed to
> make a number illegal ...
>
While people knew about radar, there was several big secrets about it.
The "Cavity Magnetron" was invented in 1940 and was a big breakthrough
for radar. It was quickly deployed and the Allies held a lead in radar
that their counterparts in Germany and Japan were never able to close.
By the end of the war, practically every Allied radar was based on a
magnetron. For a time, the orders were to not put the magnetron radar
where it could be captured.
You probably have a magnetron in your microwave oven in your kitchen.
The point being that looking at data in a manual from that time may have
some reference to the technology of the device.
Another big breakthrough in WW II is the radio based proximity fuze
which made it easier to shoot down aircraft. Over 100 American
companies were mobilized to build some 20 million shell fuzes.
While the science behind these things may have been known, its the
engineering that is critical as well. The atomic bomb is also a good
example.