Say there are two organizations sharing similar interests, like anglers’ associations, clubs really. Both of these groups provide advice, help, tips, even classes in casting and lure making. Call them the Alpha Anglers and the Zeta Fishermen. The two groups collaborate on a joint publication filled with all kinds of angling and fishing advice, providing a baseline of information that every fisherman will find useful. Among many other tips and tricks, the work offers advice like: (i) in order to prevent unnecessary break-offs, salmon should be fished for using at least 15 pound test line; (ii) trout fishermen using dry flies should have a minimum 10 foot tapered leader; (iii) to help reduce mortality of broken-off fish, hooks should not be made of stainless steel. And all manner of other seemingly worthwhile advice. They call it the Minimum Angling and Fishing Knowledge (MAFK). They publish it themselves, and sell copies at anglers’ conventions, fishing clubs, and recently via the internet.
Over the course of years the two groups revise, expand and update their collaborative work, eventually producing MAFK 3rd Edition. At this point a regulatory Fish and Game agency decides to implement some of the advice as actual rules. It declares that within its jurisdiction salmon fishermen must use at least 15 pound test line, dry fly leaders must be at least 10 feet long, no stainless hooks are allowed, and other particulars drawn directly from MAFK.
Many fishermen howl “I’ve used 12 pound line for salmon for years with great success”, “Six foot leaders work for me!” and similar complaints. The agency blows them off, tells them “Your own peers offered these Minimums” and denies fishing licenses to any who fail to meet them.
One organization, the Alpha Anglers, says “Great! These things were developed by a group of angling experts, they are intrinsically worthwhile, and all fishermen should be bound to them.” The Zeta Fishermen say “Wait a minute! These were suggestions, offered as helpful advice, not regulatory standards. Lots of fishermen have done things differently for years with excellent success. They should not be legally precluded from exercising their own judgment.” A joint commission of the two groups sets out to solicit input and attempt reconciliation for MAFK 4th Edition.
As volunteer groups often do, the joint commission struggles along for several years, taking input and arguing positions. Meanwhile the Alpha Anglers unilaterally write a 4th Edition, claiming it to be a continuation of the joint work, but praising the regulatory use of MAFK. They offer it to the Zeta Fishermen, saying basically take it or leave it. We are publishing this, and you can either continue to have your name on it, or not.
Zeta profoundly objects. If necessary Zeta is willing to divest itself of MAFK and write its own book, renaming it perhaps Suggestions for Anglers and Fishermen and making more clear the background of choices and opportunities rather than requirements. But Zeta has a large investment in MAFK, was a full participant in its early development, and would frankly like to use much of the material within for its own book. That information, in and of itself, is valuable. Zeta simply desires to make clear to the regulatory authorities the fact that not all fishermen agree with the “minimums” presented in MAFK and that MAFK is not the peer reviewed consensus of the angling community suitable for regulatory use, as the Alphas represent it.
Finally the question(s):
[ul]
[li]Who holds copyright, one organization, both, or either?[/li][li]Can Zeta block Alpha from just dropping Alpha from the credits but using the entirety of the work, even though Zeta made significant contributions to the text and Zeta objects to the present direction of intended use?[/li][li]Can Zeta use the same text in its own book, drop reference to Alpha, and produce its own re-written version explaining its purpose as strictly suggestion and not a blueprint for regulatory action as Alpha desires?[/li][/ul]