Bernie Hutchins, Electronotes, Copyrights

[inman at interpath.com]

Sean Costello wrote:
> However, the vast majority of the
> newsletters do not have copyright markings on them, and are thus NOT
> COPYRIGHTED.  Bernie Hutchins himself addresses this in Electronotes #95
> (November 1978), p. 20:
> 
> [begin quote]
> 
> Q: I see that most of your material is not copyrighted.  Why is this?
> 
> A: Do you see our material being copied _any_more_than_ the material of
> others who do have a copyright?  Did you ever see anyone look for a
> copyright notice before making a copy? Most people assume that it is
> there, and yet it makes absolutely no difference to them as to whether
> or not they make a copy, or two or there [sic], etc. So, you see,
> nothing would be changed if we had the copyright notice there.  That's
> why it's not there.  There is no way to protect printed material as long
> as we are going to also have copy machines available. In the same way
> that it does not matter to those who do not ask permission to copy, it
> does not seem to matter whether the copyright notices is there or not to
> those who do ask permission.  We have a good number of requests to use
> our material, and are always happy to reply in the affirmative to those
> with the courtesy to ask.
> 
> [end quote]
> 
> It is obvious from this that the majority of information, drawings, etc.
> in Electronotes are therefore NOT under copyright.  

I am not a layer, nor do I know Mr. Hutchins, but I would like to politely
disagree with this interpretation.  First, many new copyright laws 
grandfather in previously created works.  A recent case concerned the 
posting on the internet of books by authors who had been dead X number of
years.  The US Congress recently extended the copyright period beyond X
number of years, thus making works that were going to be public domain
the next day suddenly under copyright for another 25 (I think) years.
This immediately halted the public domain posting of a number of literary
works.  Although the law regarding the need for a visual copyright notice
changed in 1979, it may have grandfathered in old works.  (If I am
wrong about this, I'd like to know).  Second, Mr. Hutchins complains about
theft and notes that there is no copyright notice, but at no point does he 
officially relinquish his copyright.  Just because someone has not exercised 
copyright power does not mean that one has legally surrendered that power.  
"Why did you suddenly decide to sue, Mr. Hutchins?"  "Because I was finally
just plain fed up with people stealing my work!"  Third, Mr. Hutchins does
describe that they have a process in place by which readers may request use.  
He suggests it is a friendly policy, but that does not mean that all requests
are answered with a "yes."  The existence of the process, itself, implies
the exercise of copyright power.  His only real complaint seems to be that
he does not have ENOUGH power over his copyright.

I am not a lawyer, but was recently involved in a case in which this
exact thing happened.  The creators of a seemingly public domain document
(with no copyright notice and in use for many years) changed from being a
not-for-profit organization to a profit-oriented company and suddenly wanted
to do just that: "Reclaim" their work.  Our lawyers advised we accept this.  
The law was on their side.  We happily (no sarcasm) complied.  I shall not
say more about the case.

> [begin quote]
> 
> Q: Do you patent your circuits, or are they covered by any sort of
> protection?
> 
> A: We have no patents or any legal claim on any of our circuits.  

Just because a person does not have legal claim on a circuit does not
mean that they do not have a legal claim on the visual presentation or
text accompanying that circuit.  Did you ever wonder how map makers
copyright a map?  After all, roads are roads and rivers are rivers.
One way they do it is by inserting (falsely) tiny dead end roads.
Thus, they have an "original" map.  The visual presentation, text,
and other aspects of Mr. Hutchins work make it his.  (It is hard to
imagine these days a circuit using an OP AMP or other common IC
that would be original.  App notes from manufacturers and endless
circuit books make it almost impossible to imagine a circuit
that has not been designed.  But, even in the circuit bible books,
authors are careful to note the owners of a republished circuit.
It is, I imagine, the re-use of the picture of the circuit that
necessitates this.)  Also, other contributors to Electronotes
(if there were any -- pardon my ignorance) may have had to sign
copyright waivers for their work.  This is standard practice for 
academic journals and other magazines.  If other contributors signed
away rights, Mr. Hutchins at one point bought the rights.  Thus, he
owns the rights.  Believe it or not, but anyone working for him for
pay automatically signed away their rights to what was a "work for
hire"  -- unless there was a clause exempting them.  Invent a cold
fusion machine while your sitting at your desk at MicroInventions,
Inc?  It ain't yours.  (Which is why you should have all your great
ideas on your lunch hour, across the street!)      

> They are for the individual use and edification of our readers.  The only
> claim we have would be the usual practices of being given credit for
> ideas that our readers may want to pass on further.  We would hate to
> see one of our circuits published elsewhere without being given credit
> as the source.  This is just a matter of common courtesy and fair play.

Mr. Hutchins could argue that the internet is a medium through which 
ownership rights quickly dissolve into cyberdust, that the posting
of this information would be lifted, and that the situation almost
guarantees that they would soon loose "credit."  He also states that
"readers" may do this.  A lawyer might argue that only "readers," 
that is, subscribers would have this option.  Buy once, trade at will?  

I am not a lawyer, but I know enough to follow one simple rule:

Unless you have a lawyer, don't screw with someone who does.


Elliot 

PS.  The above does not reflect my own concerns about keeping alive
technologies, ideas, and great books that -- without the obvious
and flagrant violation of copyright law -- would disappear from the
face of the Earth.  One wonders which would be better:  To own the
rights to a book that can never be read, or never to make another
penny from a book read by thousands of people who would benefit
greatly from its contents and keep those ideas alive for another
fifty years?  Which is better:  To be the known author of an unknown
work or the unknown author of a well-known work?  Those are ethical
questions Mr. Hutchins can decide for himself.