Who owns copyright in Lecture notes?

[Old Toad]

A couple of my friends in chat on ObjectivismOnline.Net have remarked that they have questions about my post on a speaker’s copyright in his lecture vs. a note taker’s. I hope the following elaboration is helpful.

I. RESPECT FOR DR. RIDPATH'S EXPECTATIONS AND WISHES

As a preliminary matter, I stress that the primary consideration is simply respect for Dr. Ridpath’s likely expectations and wishes regarding any publication of his lecture to the North Texas Objectivist Society (“NTOS”), which was held at a private forum. Each welcome participant was asked to pay $40/person ($25/student) to attend. We had not previously asked him for permission to record his lecture or to otherwise publish his lecture. News media were not invited.

From this context, I think Dr. Ridpath should be able to expect that his lecture to NTOS would not be recorded or published to the world (except for the answers to specific questions regarding which he was specifically informed were from here, ObjectivismOnline.Net, a more publicly visible forum).

I grant this respect to Dr. Ridpath. When called to David’s attention, so did he. This alone is sufficient for us to decide that we should ask Dr. Ridpath for permission before publishing detailed notes taken from his lecture.

II. RESPECT FOR THE COPYRIGHT INTERESTS

Copyright is the legal recognition of an author's right to control the copying of his own works. This can be a different and formal basis for our respecting Dr. Ridpath's wishes regarding any publication of David's notes.

Copyright extends to anyone’s original work of authorship. The standard for “originality” is very low. The lower limit is that it does not extend to any idea, process, system, method, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is presented in such a work.

For example, the text of Atlas Shrugged is surely copyrighted. The abstracted plot or outline of Atlas Shrugged is included in this copyright protection. But not the bare theme or idea: “the role of man’s mind in existence.” Anyone is free to independently write a book on this theme.

Similarly, the full text of Dr. Ridpath’s lecture is surely copyrightable. The outline, too. But not the bare theme or idea: “Friedrich Nietzsche vs. Ayn Rand.” Anyone is free to independently prepare and give a lecture on this bare theme.

So who owns the copyright in David’s notes taken from Dr. Ridpath’s lecture?

The answer is both Dr. Ridpath and David.

To the extent the notes are derived from Dr. Ridpath, Dr. Ridpath owns the copyright in them. Based on that contribution to the notes, Dr. Ridpath should be able to control or limit the publication of the notes. David should not publish the notes without Dr. Ridpath’s permission.

To the extent that David – in the process of taking the notes from Dr. Ridpath’s lecture – made changes, such as regarding which points to include in his notes, restating or summarizing what Dr. Ridpath said in different words, or making his own comments, David owns the copyright in the notes to that extent. Based on that contribution to the notes, David should be able to control or limit the publication of the notes. Dr. Ridpath should not publish David’s notes without David’s permission.

Both Dr. Ridpath and David are the authors of David's notes. Both their permissions should be required to publish David's notes taken from Dr. Ridpath's lecture.

III. WHO OWNS THE PHYSICAL PAGES OF DAVID'S NOTES?

One further point of clarification. David certainly owns the physical pages of the notes he took of Dr. Ridpath’s lecture. David can burn them, keep them in his files, or sell the physical note pages, as he pleases.

But the right to copy the physical pages of the notes, i.e., the “copyright” in them, is intellectual property, not physical property. The copyright is independent of the physical embodiment of the original work of authorship or any particular copy of the original work of authorship. Just as owning a copy of Atlas Shrugged does not give the owner of that book copy the right to make any further copies of it, David's owning the original pages of the notes does not mean that he has the sole right to copy or publish them.

The right to copy covers such actions as typing the notes into a computer and putting them up on the Internet. Any such action should require the permission of both the authors of these notes: David and Dr. Ridpath.

*** Mod's note: I've split the topic, to allow any copyright-specific discussion to stand on its own. - sN ***

Edited October 25, 2007 by softwareNerd
Added topic-split annotation.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

*** Splitting, to allow any discussion of copyright to stand as its own thread **

So who owns the copyright in David’s notes taken from Dr. Ridpath’s lecture?

The answer is both Dr. Ridpath and David.

I'm not a copyright lawyer, as you are, but I think this is the primary point of contention regarding having a review of a lecture or other function, such as a movie review.

If I go to a movie and then write a review of it -- even while going into quite a bit of detail about the plot and characters -- then I own the review and the copyright of the review, and I don't have to get permission from the movie makers in order to publish my review. As a point of politeness to the potential viewer so as not to spoil the surprises of the movie, objectivismonline.net provides a redact-ability to spoilers -- the explicit plot spoilers can be presented in blacked out text that require one to select the text in order to be able to read it -- but this is not a copyright issue. For example, if I told you that in The Kingdom

the evil terrorist gets killed in the end

, I am not violating the copyright of the movie by making that statement about a crucial event that occurs in the movie. And I wouldn't be violating the copyright to the movie by making a review of the movie that includes the primary plot.

As a further example, if I told you that Atlas Shrugged is a novel about a railroad heiress trying to track down someone she believes is removing the most productive men from society while having an affair with a married steel tycoon, and that her former lover has become a worthless playboy; if I do that, then I am not violating the copyright to Atlas Shrugged. And I am even free to go into a lot more of the plot and characters, say in a full-scale review or even writing a book about Atlas Shrugged without having to get permission from anyone. And I would own the copyright to my work, including the copyright to this posting; and I don't need permission from either the makers of The Kingdom or Atlas Shrugged to write what I write about it; so long as it is not a detailed transcription of either the movie or the novel.

Edited October 25, 2007 by softwareNerd
Added topic-split annotation

[DavidOdden]

The idea of "notes" is too open-ended to be of any use here. There isn't any joint ownership or contradiction in ownership of "notes", there are separate things being owned. Therefore if my notes on AS say "Ayn Rand implicitly refers to the legal concept of scienter when the says in Atlas Shrugged 'A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality.'", then I have the exclusive copyright to that first part which I wrote and Rand has copyright to that which she wrote. While you do not (necessarily) have to get the permission of the copyright owner to quote a novel or a play, you do not gain any copyright by quoting. You simply have statutory permssion to copy without permission (up to a point).

If I were to put up a web page that explains Objectivism and I were to say:

"Objectivism is best summarized in 'Galt's Speech' from Atlas Shrugged, which says '"For twelve years, you have been asking: Who is John Galt? This is John Galt speaking. I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values....'

etc. copying the entirety of the speech -- that is an infringement of copyright. The legal question is whether material had a fixed physical form and was copied without permission (and isn't fair use). I think the personal question really leads, here.

[ed: can't spell 'personal' it seems, d.o]

Edited October 25, 2007 by DavidOdden

[intellectualammo]

Since this thread is about copyrights, and I have contacted TIA about this and they still haven't gotten back to me, maybe some of you could help me with the questions I have. I won't explain where, how, or whom has posted this besides that it wasn't on this forum and it wasn't me.

When I saw it I wondered if they had to have permission to post it, and I contacted them and the poster said that they did not get permission, though it is a small piece, and they claim it falls under fair use and also the forum itself will back the poster in this. That may very well be, I'm just not entirely convinced of that.

The article is one that many have never seen and it's rather hard to come across, as far as I know. But it's still up. It's Peter Schwartz "On Sanctioning the Sanctioners." It's apparently only a few paragraphs long, but it was posted without permission from TIA.

My question is: What if a person were to say...post it here for everyone to see? Would they be allowed? is it "fair use"? Usually you'd link to an article. I know the ARI had to get permission to reprint Peikoff's "Fact and Value" from the TIA on their website.

My other question is to those that have seen said Schwartz article, is it really only a few paragraphs, or is it longer than that?

Edited October 25, 2007 by intellectualammo

[DavidV]

By the way, I don't think there is any legal or moral obligation of me not to make my notes public. (There would be a moral, but not a legal issue if Dr Ridpath asked me to take them down after the event.) I just took them down out of respect for the organizer - and because I want to be invited to future events.

[DavidOdden]

When I saw it I wondered if they had to have permission to post it, and I contacted them and the poster said that they did not get permission, though it is a small piece, and they claim it falls under fair use and also the forum itself will back the poster in this. That may very well be, I'm just not entirely convinced of that.

I suspect that there are seminars in "fair use guesswork". Universities often have guidelines based on what the suits tell them they can probably get away with. Perhaps the best answer is "see Folsom v. Marsh et seq.".

My question is: What if a person were to say...post it here for everyone to see? Would they be allowed? is it "fair use"?

Use is fair if it is judged to be so -- in other words, there are no clear statutory statements that define "fair use". A legal expert can render an informed opinion of the way the prevailing legal winds are blowing, usually. Total reproduction of all 2,004 words is verboten. I can say "Evil is not self-sustaining. That which stands defiantly opposed to reality cannot survive on its own. Its enduring existence requires the acquiescence of the good", and comment on that fact or use it as illustrative text (as I am doing now). But the question "would it be allowed" is slightly different. That's a policy question and David V is the arbiter of such questions. Since there is no constitutional right to post on OO, we can be strict. I'll tell you that if someone did post the entire text, or most of the text, I would probably delete it because that would be a clear infringement of copyright and would be pointless to boot. OTOH if someone managed to quote about 1/3 of the essay in the course of a couple hundred posts that examine the article in detail, that could in my opinion be appropriate.

The point is that serious intellectual discussion of topics is impossible if you cannot actually say what Ayn Rand said. But just because you need to quote some of what she says, does not mean you need to lift large sections of her writing because you can. You should quote what is necessary to say what you have to say).

[intellectualammo]

That's a policy question and David V is the arbiter of such questions. Since there is no constitutional right to post on OO, we can be strict. I'll tell you that if someone did post the entire text, or most of the text, I would probably delete it because that would be a clear infringement of copyright and would be pointless to boot. OTOH if someone managed to quote about 1/3 of the essay in the course of a couple hundred posts that examine the article in detail, that could in my opinion be appropriate.

Thank you. That's what I was looking for. When I had brought this up this is what was posted later: "[the other site] stands fully behind [the posters name] presenting it as a legal and moral thing to do."

The point is that serious intellectual discussion of topics is impossible if you cannot actually say what Ayn Rand said. But just because you need to quote some of what she says, does not mean you need to lift large sections of her writing because you can. You should quote what is necessary to say what you have to say).

True, and if a person does have trouble saying it, as I admittedly do sometimes, it would be a disservice not to quote Rand directly then.

[Old Toad]

Under principles of copyright, a person does not have the right to use another person’s expression of an idea. The line between the expression of an idea (e.g., “Atlas Shrugged”) and the broadest possible, most abstract statement of the expressed idea (e.g., its theme “the role of man’s mind in existence) is a matter of judgment. Reasonable men can differ exactly where the line should be drawn on the facts of a particular case.

The “fair-use” exception is much more limited than commonly understood. In principle, it is a narrow exception allowing for the use of minimal excerpts of another's work for various non-commercial or educational purposes (such as comment or discussion) that do not materially affect the value of the author’s work. Much alleged “fair-use” is copyright infringement.

David’s notes on Dr. Ridpath’s lecture to the North Texas Objectivist Society (“NTOS”) are quite good. Relating to Dr. Ridpath’s 2 hour organized lecture presentation on the topic “Friedrich Nietzsche vs. Ayn Rand,” David’s originally posted nearly 1,000 words of outline notes presented in outline form on nearly 4 typewritten pages. The notes capture not just an excerpt or two, but the entire outline and the essential points of the lecture. The publication of such extensive notes of Dr. Ridpath’s lecture could reasonably be found to materially affect the value of his work.

Out of respect for Dr. Ridpath and his copyright interest in the product of his mind, I suggest that we err on the side of respecting his wishes regarding any substantial publication of the outline and content of his lecture.

BTW, all it takes to make this an expressly legal issue, not just a moral one, is for Dr. Ridpath to sue David for copyright infringement. Without undertaking a legal analysis, I would expect Dr. Ridpath could win such a lawsuit against David (under State common law regarding lectures not otherwise recorded), likely obtaining both injunctive relief and monetary damages. Most states will protect a speaker’s copyright in an otherwise unrecorded lecture, borrowing relevant concepts more fully developed in federal law.

I hope that Dr. Ridpath does not sue David and will give him permission to publish the excellent notes he took from the lecture.

Edited October 26, 2007 by Old Toad

[intellectualammo]

The “fair-use” exception is much more limited than commonly understood. In principle, it is a narrow exception allowing for the use of minimal excerpts of another's work for various non-commercial or educational purposes (such as comment or discussion) that do not materially affect the value of the author’s work. Much alleged “fair-use” is copyright infringement.

Yes, now that's even more helpful to me, seeing how I even thought that "fair use" is actually a lot broader than it actually is. This is why I raised the question at the other forum (of which I am not a member). I even looked at the copyright laws a little in regards to this, like fair use.

So in my opinion, after what Dave has said, you've said, what the laws say, now I'm going to say: What the poster did, and the forum administrator did was not the "legal and moral thing to do" by allowing it to continue to be posted there - especially since the administrator was the one who linked to the copyright laws and had read them, and still let it remain and backed it in light of this: from the law link, in regards to determining if it is fair use or infringement:

3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;

It was the whole work... That was the entire article, right? We've spoken one on one about this before, and you have seen the work before it was posted there, and you have seen it posted there as well. Do the two match?

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation.

They think that it does "clearly apply". How can it, after #3?

Near the end of the link:

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material.

That's the "legal and moral thing to do" and until they do gain permission, they should take it down ---> remove it, IMO instead of waiting to hear of "complaints" (read: until we get into trouble; read again: until we get caught).

Since you are a copyright attorney, Old Toad, any comments on it, or on my opinions would be very helpful and appreciated. Or anyone else who'd like to comment.

[DavidOdden]

That's the "legal and moral thing to do" and until they do gain permission, they should take it down ---> remove it, IMO instead of waiting to hear of "complaints" (read: until we get into trouble; read again: until we get caught).

Now one must invoke the DMCA. The person who posts infringing material is the infringer. This has come up here, where people post links to pirated materials on Youtube. By policy, and I hold that their policy is correct, non-lewd stuff stays up until there is a complaint from the copyright holder (etc: they have a procedure). It's not the function of Youtube to judge whether material is "without permission" and it is their function to make space available. Hence if the Estate of Ayn Rand (or Mike Wallace) complains about pirated materials being posted, they can assert that right. I would not automatically assign legal responsibility to the forum (owner), especially if there is some indemnification and warrant of right to post clause, where posters may post only if they have a right to. Now we're squarely in the territory of "law is" v. "law ought".

[intellectualammo]

Now one must invoke the DMCA. The person who posts infringing material is the infringer.

Oh, yes. But the administration can act as the moral sanctioner if they are aware of it, that it has been brought to their attention, and they make a judgment call as in saying that what the poster presented was a "legal and moral thing to do". They are taking the postition of morally sanctioning the posting of the material by virtue of saying that. So it all hinges on whether or not it was infringment or not. They certainly can be mistaken, just as I can, in our opinions on the matter, but we are clearly sanctioning/pronouncing a judgment on it either way, IMO, and are to be judged accordingly.

[DavidOdden]

But the administration can act as the moral sanctioner if they are aware of it, that it has been brought to their attention, and they make a judgment call as in saying that what the poster presented was a "legal and moral thing to do".

I agree, and the essential distinction is that with that forum (whatever we're talking about), it's virtually impossible for them to not know that posting the material is infringement even if their legal butt is covered, whereas Youtube handles such a mass of material that it's virtually impossible for them to be able to satisfy the requirements of their purpose and evaluate zillions of claims submitted to them.

[ed to add this point]

it all hinges on whether or not it was infringment or not

I think it all hinges on whether they know or should know that there is infringement. And they should. OTOH I still don't know after actively researching the matter whether the posted Rand-Wallace interview is infringement. Edited October 26, 2007 by DavidOdden

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Now we're squarely in the territory of "law is" v. "law ought".

I think this is an important point: Just because something might be illegal, it doesn't mean that it is immoral and ought not to be done.; likewise, just because someone can sue you, it doesn't mean they have a right to use the law (i.e. force) against you if you have not used force against them.

Regarding materially effecting, say sales, I think so long as libel or slander are not involved, then a negative book review or a negative movie review ought not be actionable by law. For example, if I say that a new book that is out -- let's call it The Objectivist View of Morality -- does not present the Objectivist view of morality and prove it by making numerous references to the book, and sales plummet -- well, I haven't initiated force or fraud, or libel or slander in my assessment, and therefore the law ought not to have anything to say about it. I realize people have been sued over such matters, but it is not any of the laws business what I state about a published work (short of libel or slander or fraud, etc.).

Now, there might -- and I stress might -- be a point of contention regarding a lecture or presentation not being otherwise published; for one thing, how could the reader independently assess whether or not the review was accurate? Nonetheless, unless the speaker or presenter made it a prerequisite agreement between himself and the attendees that nothing would be said about the presentation outside of this room then I don't think there is any moral grounds for preventing someone from speaking his mind about the lecture or presentation. Besides, word of mouth sales are a good way of driving up demand for a lecture; as David's notes certainly led me to want to hear the lecture, and if Dr. Ridpath was going to have been speaking in Houston or Austin, I would have driven there to hear it -- especially after knowing in more detail what the lecture was about.

[Old Toad]

I think Steve ("intellectualammo") and DavidOdden made some good points.

As I understand it, the jurisprudence of copyright law under the U.S. Constitution is based on the recognition of two independent rights: (1) a person’s right to the product of his own mind; and (2) a person’s right to free speech.

The first principle is articulated under Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have the power … To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; ….” The second principle is articulated under the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ….”

These two rights have been regarded as being “in tension," though I lean toward thinking of them as relating to different spheres.

A first dividing line between these two rights is “originality.” In principle, for a person’s work to be the subject of copyright at all, it must be “original.” To my mind, the standard of “originality” properly relates to the whether or not there could be numerous ways of expressing the idea, and, if so, whether the author created one of those, leaving the door open to innumerable other ways of expressing the idea. A clear example of insufficient “originality” in this sense would be the idea “selfishness is moral.” A clear example of sufficient originality would be Ayn Rand’s book “The Virtue of Selfishness.” Thus, copyright in an “original” work does not inhibit free speech regarding the idea.

A second dividing line is “fair use.” In principle, a person should be able to discuss and comment even regarding another’s copyrightable work. Of course, to do so requires identification of the work and sometimes even some copying of the work. For this limited free-speech purpose, minimal usage of another’s work is permissible, but only to the minimal extent it is necessary for the discussion or comment, and not to the extent it substantially diminishes the value of another’s work as a whole. The desire to talk about another person’s work cannot be an excuse for taking substantial value from another person.

The analysis of the facts in a particular situation under these principles is a matter of sound judgment. I think these principles are consistent with Objectivism.

Of course, a criticism may increase or diminish the value of another’s work in the marketplace – but it does not do so by taking a copy of it. For example (if I remember right), extreme criticism from Bill O’Reilly’s “The O’Reilly Factor” of Dan Brown’s novel “The Da Vinci Code” increased the value of the copyright – without copying hardly any of the book. O'Reilly's criticisms made people want to read it (or see the movie) for themselves.

… unless the speaker or presenter made it a prerequisite agreement between himself and the attendees that nothing would be said about the presentation outside of this room then I don't think there is any moral grounds for preventing someone from speaking his mind about the lecture or presentation.”

This is a gross equivocation. David’s notes do not speak David’s mind about Dr. Ridpath’s lecture, they speak the product of Dr. Ridpath’s mind.

Edited October 27, 2007 by Old Toad

[intellectualammo]

As I understand it, the jurisprudence of copyright law under the U.S. Constitution is based on the recognition of two independent rights: (1) a person’s right to the product of his own mind; and (2) a person’s right to free speech.

[...]

These two rights have been regarded as being “in tension," though I lean to thinking of them as relating to different spheres.

A first dividing line between these two spheres is “originality.”

[...]

A second dividing line is “fair use.”

Nice. Very nice way to show that there isn't exactly said tension, with your two spheres.

In principle, a person should be able to discuss and comment even regarding another’s copyrightable work. Of course, to do so requires identification of the work and sometimes even some copying of the work. For this limited free-speech purpose, minimal usage of another’s work is permissible, but only to the minimal extent it is necessary for the discussion or comment, and not to the extent it substantially diminishes the value of another’s work as a whole. The desire to talk about another person’s work cannot be an excuse for taking substantial value from another person.

The analysis of the facts in a particular situation under these principles is a matter of sound judgment. I think these principles are consistent with Objectivism.

I agree with everything you have said, and more: I think it's consonant with objective law. Objectivism provides the moral and philosophic system for objectively defined laws...the forest if you will, and what you have said above are more like the trees in that, and I think they stand.

David’s notes do not speak David’s mind about Dr. Ridpath’s lecture, they speak the product of Dr. Ridpath’s mind.

I agree. I had taken copious amounts of notes about a trial course I had attended of Greg Salmiera's two summers ago. I did not share the notes at all with anyone. I only spoke of what it was about, which actually was very little, I spoke more about someone else that was there in attendence, but gave none of his ideas or such away. I thought that at the time it was appropriate, respectful, thing to do, and now the legal way to go about it since he was delivering this at an OCON.

Edited October 27, 2007 by intellectualammo

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

This is a gross equivocation. David’s notes do not speak David’s mind about Dr. Ridpath’s lecture, they speak the product of Dr. Ridpath’s mind.

First of all, I agree that there is no conflict of rights -- i.e. there is no conflict between copyrights and freedom of speech; an individuals freedom of speech (and the ability to profit from his speech) is exactly what the copyright laws are there to protect. In other words, there is no free speech if anyone can copy anything that anyone says or writes; since the product of one's mind is one's property, and the right to property does not include the right to steal. As I have said before, I have absolutely no argument with the idea that one ought not to post a transcript of a lecture without the creator's permission.

This goes along with my understanding of patents, including software patents -- an issue that came up in another thread. One does not have the right to use someone else's patent "freely" because the permission needed to use it is protection of the patent creator. It is his rights that must be upheld first or we would not be living in an industrial age. Similarly, if copyrights were not protected, the creators of written or spoken work would give up in frustration or go on strike against those wanting to steal from them (as they should).

The point of contention legally (under an objective code) and morally (by man's life as the standard) is this: If I take notes at a lecture, who owns them -- me or the lecturer? I claim that I do because I wrote them, as I own all of the notes I have ever taken at college or at Objectivists conferences or lectures -- and I still have those and could publish them without a rational copyright conflict so long as they are not verbatim in total or any substantial portion of the lectures.

Most notes are not verbatim. What the note taker thinks is important to write down may very substantially from what the lecturer considers to be the main points (say if he drew up an outline). Now, David's notes were certainly not verbatim in any sense of the word (unless Dr. Ridpath handed out an outline sheet that David directly copied from, which nobody said he did). The notes presented on oo.net were barely a sketch of the lecture, and all David had to do to make it more of a report was to fill in some more details and tie it all together as an essay, which he didn't do.

While I don't think David publishing his notes is a violation of Dr. Ridpath's' intellectual property rights at all; if I had written the notes and Dr. Ridpath asked me to take them down, I probably would out of respect for him; but it wouldn't be a copyright issue.

Just look at all of the discussion we are having here about this issue, which could have been focused on the lecture. Such a detailed discussion of what Dr. Ridpath talked about and what it meant would not only have pumped up sales for Dr. Ridpath's future lectures, it would have boosted attendance of the special NTOS events -- at no cost at all to Dr. Ridpath's intellectual property rights.

And, Old Toad, you are preventing that from happening. Nobody either on oo.net on on your own message board is talking about the lecture and what it meant and why anyone ought to attend such a lecture in the future.

[Old Toad]

To anyone who is interested,**

As it did not appear that David had yet heard back from Dr. Ridpath, I called him on the telephone yesterday. I explained the issues we had been discussing here on ObjectivismOnline.Net, including regarding my desire to respect his possible wishes regarding any publishing of his lecture to the North Texas Objectivist Society and my concern for a speaker’s copyright interest in his lectures. Dr. Ridpath was extremely appreciative that I called him about this. He explained that he had not ever given any serious thought to the subject.

Dr. Ridpath decided that he should review David’s notes before giving his permission to publish them on the Internet. He believes that David owns the copy of the notes he took – he has always thought that about a student’s lecture notes – but he does not believe that a student has the right to publish lecture notes, especially depending on how extensive they are.

Accordingly, he asked that David send him a copy of the notes in the form that he wants to publish them so that he can review them. He asked this be done via snail mail. Dr. Ridpath explained he is not proficient with using e-mail or the Internet. From this, I expect that we will not have Dr. Ridpath’s specific answer regarding whether to give permission for the publication of David’s notes for at least another week.

** P.S. I do not mean to engage Tom Miovas. I have expelled him from the North Texas Objectivist Society ("NTOS"), of which I am the Organizer, for his being obnoxious and rude to me and others. My judgment is more fully explained at: http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/messages/boar...fset=30#8477457

Edited October 28, 2007 by Old Toad

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

** P.S. I do not mean to engage Tom Miovas. I have expelled him from the North Texas Objectivist Society ("NTOS"), of which I am the Organizer, for his being obnoxious and rude to me and others. My judgment is more fully explained at: http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/messages/boar...fset=30#8477457

Old Toad did such a wonderful job in bringing together the threads on the NTOS message board via the above link that I only have two things to say regarding it:

1) Since we are engaged in a philosophic revolution, I will quote Patrick Henry regarding the American Revolution: If this be treason, make the most of it!

2) Since his message brings in Howard Roark, I will quote him: The defense rests.

[intellectualammo]

To anyone who is interested,**

Dr. Ridpath decided that he should review David’s notes before giving his permission to publish them on the Internet. He believes that David owns the copy of the notes he took – he has always thought that about a student’s lecture notes – but he does not believe that a student has the right to publish lecture notes, especially depending on how extensive they are.

Accordingly, he asked that David send him a copy of the notes in the form that he wants to publish them so that he can review them. He asked this be done via snail mail. Dr. Ridpath explained he is not proficient with using e-mail or the Internet. From this, I expect that we will not have Dr. Ridpath’s specific answer regarding whether to give permission for the publication of David’s notes for at least another week.

I certainly am one that's interested in this, and thank you for posting this information, and the information that preceded it. Your contributions and efforts in this matter have not gone unnoticed by me. This I want to personally thank you for. I also will be watching even more closely exactly how I phrase and write ideas out in the novoul that I have been writing. I really do hope that Dr. Ridpath OK's the notes in some form or another...

[softwareNerd]

The question of whether lecture notes can come under copyright is the subject of a law-suit.

Moulton and his e-textbook publisher are suing Thomas Bean, who runs a company that repackages and sells student notes, arguing that the business is illegal since notes taken during college lectures violate the professor's copyright.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

The question of whether lecture notes can come under copyright is the subject of a law-suit.

I think this case goes back to the verbatim issue. I would agree that if the professor handed out a guide sheet or presented one via some means, like an overhead projector, that this would be covered under copyrights.

But I take issue with the derivative notes based on the lecture, provided the derivative notes are not verbatim. However, it sounds like the company buying notes and then reselling them is probably getting very close to verbatim, or they wouldn't be worth paying money for to get an A on a test.

I still think that with movie reviews and book reviews, which are obviously written based upon the novel or the movie, are owned by the person writing them, and not the original copyright holder, provided these do not include copious tracts of verbatim material. If movie reviews and book reviews are to be considered derivative works -- as outlined in this case -- then their couldn't be any movie reviews or book reviews, as these would be a copyright violation. I don't see the courts agreeing to that.

I think so long as one is simply doing a report, basically just talking or writing about what the lecture was about in general terms and in the students own words for (the most part) would be owned by the student along with the copyrights to those notes. But, again, this would depend on how verbatim they were.

Just to stress the point, no student would have the right whatsoever to voice record or to verbatim write down what the professor says and claim it to be the student's, just as one could not give a verbatim word for word transcript of a movie or a word for word copying of a book with, say, comments in between some paragraphs and call that a book review. And this holds true for some things I have seen some students posting to oo.net, such as the entire lectures posted onto their personal website; as this would be a violation of copyright.

Technically speaking, even taking a photograph or an image file and posting it to oo.net would be a violation of the copyright to whoever owned the original; such as art image files or celebrity photograph files. Basically, in this context, if you don't own it, don't post it. Just because something is available to anyone browsing a web page doesn't make it in the public domain.

[DavidOdden]

But I take issue with the derivative notes based on the lecture, provided the derivative notes are not verbatim.

Why is that? Is it your position that copyright should only protect the exact form of a work?

I still think that with movie reviews and book reviews, which are obviously written based upon the novel or the movie, are owned by the person writing them, and not the original copyright holder, provided these do not include copious tracts of verbatim material.

Even if they include massive amounts of verbatim matierial, the review is owned by the person who wrote them. No matter how much copied material you include, you don't own the copied material (barring a transfer).

If movie reviews and book reviews are to be considered derivative works -- as outlined in this case -- then their couldn't be any movie reviews or book reviews, as these would be a copyright violation.

Hence fair use law.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Is it your position that copyright should only protect the exact form of a work?

No, I'm saying that if it is verbatim, it is definitely a violation of copyright.

Fair use means you can use a few paragraphs from a larger written work, but one couldn't, say, make verbatim the whole first chapter of Atlas Shrugged and then write a few paragraphs in review of the first chapter and claim the work for one's own. One can write "Who is John Galt?" as fair use, but one couldn't do what someone presented on this forum, such as taking all of Galt's speech and superimpose it on the cover art for Atlas Shrugged and claim it as your poster that you have a right to distribute, for money or not.

In between outright verbatim and fair use, there is a whole range of usage, and one would have to specify by law how much can be used without going beyond fair use. In the news story presented earlier, I think if someone is going to concede that a student taking notes is fair use, then the student can do with it what he wants.

The bigger issue is, where does one draw the line? For some things, such as music, one can only take a recognizable snippet as fair use, and anything more is a copyright violation. For example, I once wrote a short story to go along with Rachmaninoff's Symphony #2, and I read it out loud to a small group of Objectivists with the music playing in the background. In a way, my story was a derivative of Symphony #2, but I would certainly claim that I owned the copyright to the story. I wouldn't be free to sell it on tape with Symphony #2 playing in the background, unless I got copyright clearance from the copyright owner; but I could publish my story without asking anyone's permission.

So, in the case of someone taking notes from a lecture, it would have to be clearly defined what is and what is not fair use. For example, at the beginning of this post, I quoted your question, and since I am writing this posting in my own words, I own the copyright to it, with the use of your question as fair use. But, no one would have the right to take this particular post / essay, and put it on their website without my permission, as that would be a violation of my copyright.

There is definitely an issue there regarding what is and what is not fair use, and I think if there are any questions about how much one is copying into one's own work, it is best to ask for permission. But there is also the issue of legally distinct from the original, which must also be clearly defined. For example, I once saw a Robot Chicken episode that parodied Star Wars; the scene where Darth Vader is telling Luke Shywalker, "I am your father!" But instead of continuing that way it was in Star Wars, they had Darth Vader tell Luke all sorts of things that are revealed in later episodes that Luke doesn't know about, like the force is because of microscopic bugs, Lea is his sister, etc. At which point, Luke got disgusted and said, "Look, if you are not going to take any of this seriously, then I'm outta here!" Evidently, doing that is considered legally distinct from the original.