OT: "Hypothetical" Plagiarism by CEO

[fredfighter]

Well you could try requesting a free copy. I'll bet it is temporarily unavailable (It's likely that the ASME has sent them a cease and desist order.)

[Enoch Root]

I'm going to suggest that to my friend. :)

I also found later that the ASME has republished an updated version of it in 2001, so even with changes to reflect social evolution they may be in the position of having maintained copyright.

er

[Mike Marlow]

Ok - I looked at the links you posted in another reply and I have to say that those points certainly do look specific enough to raise an eyebrow. Can't see what the list of points actually are in your friend's booklet but if they are pretty much a one for one match then I'd have to agree with you.

[Dhakala]

It's both. The author of the prior work can sue the CEO.

[jo4hn]

It is possible, of course, that both could have plagiarized from a third party. That does happen. honest jo4hn (who never stole much)

[Enoch Root]

I looked at the book and saw the passages... I didn't do an analysis but my friend says there is about an 80% match with what was listed in the usatoday article.

er

[Enoch Root]

Said friend was contacted by a journalist, iirc claiming to be from the nyt, and who reported that contacting officials of Raytheon she was told that ceo had collected his pearls over the years from many sources... and that the book was being given away free so there was no monetary gain...

Interesting.

er

[Robert Bonomi]

Definitely. particularly misc.legal.moderated. However, he'll have to be a _lot_ more specific, to get anything approaching a meaningful answer.

For older works, it is a _lot_ more complicated than that, unfortunately..

It depends on: *IF* the original work was copyrighted -- required _registration_ with the Library of Congress. If the copyright required renewal before the Berne Convention changes and if so, whether or not it _was_ renewed. If copyright was still in force at the time of the Berne Convention changes. If the copyright had been renewed, and subsequently expired, was the filing made 'restoring' copyright under Berne Convention rules.

If copyright in effect when Berne adopted, 'life plus (now) 70 yrs' applies If original copyright had expired, and was not renewed, it is in public domain. If original copyright renewed, and not expired when Berne adopted, 'life plus (now) 70 yrs' applies. If original copyright renewed, and expired, and 'restoration' notice not filed, it is in public domain. If original copyright renewed, and expired, and 'restoration' notice was filed, 'life plus (now) 70 yrs' applies

In reality, the situation is even _messier_ than above. because the value of 'n', for 'life plus n years' has been changed more than once. creating some additional classes of works eligible for 'restoration' of copyright,

*if* the appropriate notice was filed with the gov't/

Correction: 'Created by the government' is _NOT_ eligible for copyright protection. This is expressly stated in the copyright statute. The government may, however, hold copyright rights that were transferred _to_ the gov't by a third party.

[Lobby Dosser]

... and they all Just Happened to line up. Like a billion monkeys on typewriters. And sometimes coincidences happen.

Ever know a CEO who didn't want his name in lights or the NYT best seller list? Odd.

... and they all Just Happened to line up

[Enoch Root]

The bad on that is the ceo is already credited with turning the company around. He was doing all right.

I predict that in the minds of many (who've adopted "business ethics" as their own) that will be enough to exonerate him of all harm or transgression.

er

[Enoch Root]

Eh, my reply to this last evening was eaten by a server burp:

Okay, now I understand.

There is an overwhelmingly large amount of funny business going on at all levels, though, and it's hard to get a grip on it all--but it would be a shame to dismiss all the fruits of any efforts to expose it. You'll never get the complete story: perfect knowledge is a tough hurdle, and the gaps are an opportunity to equivocate.

A "lead" on a story is something that should demand more attention, not less. :)

er

[Ba r r y]

Do you know anyone at Raytheon that can get me a discount on Beechcraft parts?

A guy can ask...

Barry

[fredfighter]

No, confusion.

According to the Berne Convention, 'created by the government' IS eligible, without regard to which government. 'Eligibility' depends on the thing that is created, not the identification of the creator. The 'right' is an intellectual property right that is cocreated with the work in question. The US has, by statute, prohibitted itself from enforcing its copyrights on material originally created by the US government.

Yes. The US government can also transfer its copyrights for material 'created by the government' to private parties as was done with most of the Landsat imagery during the Reagan Administration.

[fredfighter]

Correction, the copyright owner can sue an infringer. Typically for journal articles the copyright is transferred from the author to the publisher prior to publication and retained by the publisher thereafter.

[fredfighter]

That is what it says in the USA today article.

Monetary gain on the part of an infringer is irrelevant. A work is infringed if it is copied unless the act qualifies for exemptions specified in the statute, the copier has the permission of the coyright owner, or the work is in the public domain.

Monetary loss on the part of the copyright owner is an issue, not in determining if infringement has occurred, but in determing damages.

The ASME sells "The Unwritten Laws of Engineering", so if the work in question infirnges on the ASME's copyrights then each copy distributed may be construed as costing the ASME money, even though the infringer loses money copying and distributing the work.

My guess is that the ASME will receive (or already has received) a licensing fee from Raytheon, perhaps in the form of a donation. It is entirely possible that a licensing deal was cut with the ASME prior to publication so that no infringement occurred.

I'm also inclined to guess that it was ghost written--which has some rather amusing implications. One wonders, for example, if the _USA Today_ article was written by the same author...

[Enoch Root]

Yes, and conflicts with the reality that it was almost exclusively King's book that was the source.

I imagine they are anticipating all stages of any sort of civil litigation that could fall out, in making that statement.

They might make that argument, but from what I've seen (and that's fairly limited, as IANAL) it's a difficult argument to make.

[schnibble]

I think WJ King has either passed away or is feeling his oats in some pasture. :)

er

[Enoch Root]

btw, I appreciate that you are concerned about the scope of copyright, and offer an old article about a somewhat different situation--but one which does clarify the distinction between idea and expression:

er

[Lobby Dosser]

These days "business ethics" is an oxymoron.

[Robert Bonomi]

[[.. munch ..]]

Yup. on _your_ part.

What the Berne Convention says doesn't mean sh*t, if the laws that implement the agreement say something different.

In the U.S., the laws implementing the Berne Convention accords state: "Copyright protection under this title is not available for works of the United States Government."

It does _not_ say that "the U.S.G. will not enforce it's copyright on any works it creates."

*IF* there was an un-enforced copyright on 'works of the U.S. Government', Then the U.S.G. could assign, transfer, or sell, that 'intellectual property' to 'someone else', who then _could_ enforce the "rights" associated therewith.

Since, however, the statute expressly states that there is 'no protection' for works of the U.S.G, that _cannot_ happen. There is no 'thing of value' (intellectual property) there to be sold, transferred, or assigned. Copyright protection simply *does*not*exist* for those works. Since copyright protection does not exist _under_any_circumstances_ for those works, it is entirely accurate to describe those works as 'not being eligible for copyright protection'.

Prohibited itself, *or*anyone*else* who might hold those 'rights' at some time, from doing so. Since NO ONE can _ever_ enforce such 'rights', this is indistinguishable from the "non-existence" of that right, as regards those works. IOW, those works are "not eligible" for protection, because, for those works, the right _does_not_exist_.

No, it CANNOT. There is *no* copyright protection for such works. Per 17 USC 105:

"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, ....."

A work of the U.S. Government is still a work of the U.S. government, regardless of whom has subsequently purchased the work (or the reproduction rights for that work).

Since copyright protection is not available for that work, *regardless* of who owns it (or the 'reproduction rights'), the work is is *NOT* protected by copyright,

Those private parties are selling copyrighted works, based on the Landsat imagery. What they are selling is _not_ the original government work, but their 'derived work' (noise-filtered, composited, mosaiced, etc.) based on the government product. Their claimed copyright extends *only* to the creative effort involved in producing the derivative work, _not_ to the underlying 'raw' imagery.

Their 'exclusive' access to the 'raw' imagery is strictly a matter of a private contractual arrangement with the original owner -- who agreed, for a fee, to _not_ sell the same stuff to anybody else.

If 'somebody else', by whatever means, nefarious or otherwise, would happen to get their hands on the 'raw' imagery, and started offering it for sale, this would *not* be a violation of the copyright held by the derivative-work producer.

[fredfighter]

I imagine the statment is either being made for pure PR purposes since it addresses an issue that is completely irrelevant to any legal issues. An infrignmetn suit alleges harm to the copyright owner. If the infringer didn't benefit from the infringent why should that matter to the copyright owner?

AFAIK that is the standard argument regarding damages. Each copy distributed by the infringer deprives the copyright owner of their rightful income they would have received by selling a copy. I suppose there are counter arguments that if sold instead of given away fewer copes would be distributed, arguments about profit margin and so on. But the basic argument that distribution of an infringing copy deprives the copyright owner of income is rock-solid. That is the basis for a copyright suit since typically you are not allowed to sue for anything unless the alleged tort has cost you something with monetary value.

Also, AFAIK there is no such thing as 'innocent infringement'. Ignorance of a existing copyright might be a defense against criminal charges (there is such a thing as criminal copyright infringement in addition to the tort), but would not be a defense in a civil suit. Negligence is not a necessary element for copyright infringement, though willfull infringement might result in punitives.

Uh, let me clarify: I meant a different, still living ghost, which would make it a 'work for hire'.