From LPMeissner@msn.com Fri Aug 1 00:57:44 1997 Received: from upsmot05 (upsmot05.msn.com [204.95.110.87]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA28075 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 00:57:41 +0200 Received: from upmajb02.msn.com (upmajb02.msn.com [204.95.110.74]) by upsmot05 (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id PAA13866; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 15:57:34 -0700 Date: Thu, 31 Jul 97 22:53:40 UT From: "Loren Meissner" Message-Id: To: "Walt Brainerd" , SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Subject: RE: (SC22WG5.1434) F77 "standard" Walt: Here are a few quotes from Chicago Manual of Style, 14th edition (1993). = Paragraph 4.2: "[In the US since 1 January 1978,] whenever a book or article, poem or lecture, database or drama comes into the world in a tangible form, it is automatically covered by copyright. This is true regardless of whether the work is ever published. Whoever is the _author_ (a term not synonymous with _creator_ ...) controls that copyright, at the outset, and automatically possesses certain rights in the work." = Paragraph 4.24: "... we [USA] now operate simultaneously under three different doctrines: (1) for works first published on or after 1 March 1989 [the date the Berne convention became effective in the US], no copyright notice is required; (2) for works first published between 1 January 1978 and 28 February 1989, copyright notice must have been used on all copies published prior to 1 March 1989, with the proviso that certain steps could be taken, Orpheus-like, to redeem deficient notice (see 4.28); and (3) for works first published prior to 1 January 1978, the copyright was almost certainly forfeited if the notice was not affixed to all copies; few excuses were or are available." = The referenced paragraph 4.28: "Under pre-1978 law, no mechanism was available to cure the effects of defective notice: copyright was forfeited, and that was that, unless the omission of notice was accidental and occurred in a very small number of copies. For publication occurring between 1 January 1978 and 1 March 1989, a more lenient regime prevailed. A mistake in the owner's name, or a mistake by no more than a year in the date element of the notice, was largely excused. Any more serious mistake was treated as an omission of notice. Any omission of one or more of the necessary three elements [copyright symbol, year of publication, and name of copyright owner] would be excused if the omission was from a "relatively small" number of copies. If more extensive omission occurred, the copyright owner could still save the copyright from forfeiture by registering it ... within five years after the defective publication and making a "reasonable effort" to add the notice to all copies distributed to the public after the omission was discovered." = In my opinion, your mistake was requesting permission in the first place. What do they mean by "If it is determined that > copyrighted material is incorrectly posted on that website, proper steps > will be taken to have it deleted" ??? How are they going to delete material from your website? I have not yet heard on what grounds the Standards bureaucracy claims to be the author. I think the only possibility of them owning anything is _after_ they require the actual authors to assign rights to them (and some of us would sooner resign). I think, as I always have, that they are bluffing. For now, I think you should ignore them and let them sue. (Anyway, it's your neck, not mine. Get a lawyer.) = As I noted in Fortran Forum, March 1995, something awfully close to Fortran 90 was published in Fortran Forum in May 1989: "Fortran 90 (then called Fortran 8X) was officially distributed for public review in May 1989, but essentially similar drafts were widely available before 1 March. If Fortran 90 was "first published" prior to 1 March 1989, it is obviously in the public domain (in the US) because no copyright notice appears and none of the other required protective steps were ever taken. If it was "first published" on 1 March 1989 or later, it belongs to the authors, who are the technical committee members or their employers. In either case, there would seem to be no basis for any claim of copyright ownership by the standards establishment." = Loren P. Meissner -----Original Message----- From: Walt Brainerd Sent: Thursday, July 31, 1997 12:21 PM To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Subject: (SC22WG5.1434) F77 "standard" It looks like I am again in trouble with the great powers. I am seeking your advice (unofficial, I assume) as to whether to cave in or keep the Fortran 77 standard on our web site, should they try to get me to delete it. It has always been my understanding that under the old copyright rules (at least in the US), a document that is given wide distribution with no copyright notice cannot be copyrighted later (and that ANSI would not be a proper owner of the copyright anyway). I would be willing to take that position if you (collectively) think this is worth doing. > From: Rosemary ...