OT: "Hypothetical" Plagiarism by CEO

Page 2 of 3  


An example to make it an on-topic thread, how often do you site a source when you tell someone to measure twice and cut once? <g> Surely someone was the first to say it.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

or cite one -- hate it when that happens.

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
alexy wrote:

If someone starts gushing at my genius, I'll normally disclaim authorship at least. I definitely wouldn't claim authorship.
And this is more than one quip being tossed out.
er
--
email not valid

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There is a UseNet newsgroups called misc.legal and another, misc.legal.moderated. You would probably get some useful discussion going by posting there.
IIRC copyright is protected or the life of the author plus 70 years. The US government does not enforce its copyrights on material created by the government itself. Material created by Federal contractors may or may not be protected. Some contractors aggressively assert copyright in situations that seem, well, questionable.
It sounds like the new 'author' should be 'outed' but I dunno what consequences that might have for your friend.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

Good idea. Actually though, I have no idea if the original is still under copyright. My feeling is that even if it were public domain there is still an ethical boundary that has been crossed. Lawyers are a great source for legal advice, but you have to be more careful of the ethical stuff because they use an entirely different system based on clients, the law, and winning, and for some this colors other parts of their lives.

That's relatively novel. Up until '76 there was a maintenance requirement, and the term's always been shorter than that (extensions always preceding the fall of Mickey Mouse into the public domain. Makes you think about all that other work that is being lost, eh?)

I guess we're going to find out, because he's already done it. :)
I may as well give the URLs:
l'Originale "The Unwritten Laws of Engineering": (Amazon.com product link shortened)(3155
the phoney "The Unwritten Rules of Management": http://wwwxt.raytheon.com/communications/whs_rules /
The Press: http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2006-04-14-ceos-waiter-rule_x.htm (here are the "rules" as copied verbatim (with minor, sparse grammatical changes) from the original (copyright 1944, ASME press) book by WJ King.
https://s100.copyright.com/DR/USATODAY/SM8SIe2CNrRgrLVWjHeHUw--.pdf (an interview in which the new author describes the creation and assembly of his "rules", seemingly from whole cloth)
l'Expose: http://www.neuromatix.net/Blog /
er
--
email not valid

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Enoch Root wrote:

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.)
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

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
--
email not valid

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Bonomi wrote:

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.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[[.. 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Bonomi wrote:

Oh, right. Copyright PROTECTION is not available. It is the protection that is not available. The copyrights exist, not withstanding that they are not protected.
Your statement was essentially correct.

The inavailability of copyright PROTECTION means the government will not (as it cannot) PROTECT its copyrights.
Note the statute does not state that the copyright does not exist or that it cannot be ransferred to another party.
...

'Reproduction rights' ARE a component of copyright by definition.

While they may have sold processed imagery, they certainly also sold unenhanced imagery exactly as it was received from the government.

Perhaps we should locate and read that contract. ISTR that others were prohibitted from distributing the raw LandSat imagery that was transferred, which if so, is therfor indistinguishible from a transfer of copyright.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If transferred to another party, it is *still* unenforceable, to use your language.
"Copyright protection under this title is not available for works of the United States Government."
A thing which no one can enforce is no different than a thing which does not exist.

*NOT* TRUE.
e.g., I have the _only_ copy remaining in existence of a book printed in 1850, in Philadelphia, Penn, USA.
I'm sure you will agree that there is no copyright in effect on that work.
I can, however, sell permission to reproduce copies of that book. and agree not to sell that same permission to anyone else.
Now, if, after having done so, I loan that book to someone else, who photocopies the pages without (or even with) my knowledge, and starts selling copies of *those* pages, the poor guy who 'bought' from me is just SOL. I haven't breached my contract with him, 'somebody else' is not bound by that contract, and no 'statutory' prohibition to their copying applies.

You *have* to be 'recalling' incorrectly. "Doctrine of first sale" trumps contract terms restricting buyers actions (except in the case of real property, and restrictions that 'run with the land'), *absent* other statutory provisions (such as copyright -- which is _not_ applicable in this situation) that constrain the buyer from 'doing as he will' with that which he owns outright.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Enoch Root wrote:

It's both. The author of the prior work can sue the CEO.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dhakala wrote:

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.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Enoch Root wrote:

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
--
email not valid

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

... 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lobby Dosser wrote:

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
--
email not valid

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

These days "business ethics" is an oxymoron.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Do you know anyone at Raytheon that can get me a discount on Beechcraft parts?
A guy can ask... <G>
Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Enoch Root wrote:

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...
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.