I have been wondering about this for some time. Let’s see if we can get an authoritative legal opinion. I have no dog in the fight, just curious.
Some years ago, I read an interesting piece published in a magazine by two experts on parole. In it, they suggested ways new electronic technology might be used in remotely monitoring and controlling parolees – including distant monitoring of their physiology for various forms of “excitement” that might indicate problematic behavior.
This article was controversial in Libertarian circles, and I’ve seen it referenced on an obscure website as an example of serious trouble in the making, but the blogger said copyright law didn’t allow him to reproduce it, only summarize it. He could only recommend readers find a copy (I think you can still find a copy online if you look – but you can’t reproduce it without permission, if I understand what the blogger was saying).
Here’s my problem. I know this article was reprinted in full in the official U.S. government report on a U.S. Senate investigation of “Behavior Modification” in the 1970’s. The article was referenced in the body, IIRC; for certain, it was reprinted in full in an attached appendix. I know this because I had in hand a bound official copy of the report via interlibrary loan, as printed by the U.S. Government printing office.
So – is this article on the use of electronics in parole thus available to anyone in the country to reproduce, so long as they cite the source as the official U.S. Government report on the Senate’s “Behavior Modification” investigation, or does the law still extend full copyright protection to the authors and the publication in which it first appeared?
Section 5.1: Use of Non-Government Copyrighted Works in a U.S. Government Work
5.1.3 Does copyrighted material lose its copyright status and protection if it becomes part of a U.S. Government work or is included in a compilation published by the Government?
No, copyrighted material contained in a U.S. Government work does not lose its copyright status and protection. The copyright status of non-government works in a compilation is not affected by the lack of copyright protection of other works in the compilation or by the fact that the U.S. Government publishes the compilation. When copyrighted materials are included in a Government work or a compilation published by the Government, a copyright notice indicating what portions of the work are protected by copyright, and identifying the copyright owner, should be included.
And now I’ll consider going and learning what CENDI is. Just going to the home page reveals the super helpful information that it helps STI agencies cooperate.
If I go to STI.gov I suspect I’ll learn is it a warehousing agency for TLA aggregation.
That’s what’s called the false hope factor. ‘Just one more link and I’ll have the answer . . . one . . . more.’ Next thing you know, you’re on the street panhandling and mumbling to yourself. :eek:
He was not completely correct there.
It’s true that he can’t legally reproduce the entire article. But he can reprint portions of it, sufficient to illustrate his point. This is part of the “fair use” exemption. But just how big a portion can be reprinted and still be “fair use” is a question you have to decide. (And you could end up in court, with a Judge making this decision for you.)
Also, he could probably safely have reprinted the entire thing. Though not technically legal, if the published version is no longer being sold by anyone, who is there to come after him for copyright violation? And what harm could they show?
The blogger probably did it this way more to support his political leanings than for strictly legal requirements.
He was not completely correct there.
It’s true that he can’t legally reproduce the entire article. But he can reprint portions of it, sufficient to illustrate his point. This is part of the “fair use” exemption. But just how big a portion can be reprinted and still be “fair use” is a question you have to decide. (And you could end up in court, with a Judge making this decision for you.)
Also, he could probably safely have reprinted the entire thing. Though not technically legal, if the published version is no longer being sold by anyone, who is there to come after him for copyright violation? And what harm could they show?
The blogger probably did it this way more to support his political leanings than for strictly legal requirements.
You can safely commit murder, too, if you don’t get caught.
The published version remains under copyright and is controlled by the copyright holder. The legal remedies depend on whether the copyright was registered or not. If it wasn’t registered then there is little that can be done except to demand a takedown. If it was registered then punitive damages may be applied. The harm is violating the the holder’s right to control copying, which is absolute and well-recognized by the courts.
My impression (no more than that at this late date – several years down the road) was that the blogger had ASKED someone for permission to reprint the article in full and been turned down.
I think the two academic authors were surprised by the extent of the notice received by their article and the reaction to it. After all, it was looked at by a Senate committee investigating government overreaching on “people control.” The authors were professionals exploring cutting edge ideas for remote electronic monitoring of people, and discovered this was more controversial than they had anticipated.