[Lexicog] Re: Using older dictionaries

[billposer at ALUM.MIT.EDU]

Several comments with regard to copyright:

(a) if you want to make use of an older source, it may be worth looking
    into exactly who owns the copy right. Many older dictionaries were
    written by missionaries or government employees and may legally be
    works for hire, the copyright owned by a religious or governmental entity.
    In the case especially of indigenous languages, there may be evidence
    of compilation under the auspices of an indigenous organization, which
    may have rights to the material (which could be an impediment, but could
    also make it usable if you are, or are authorized by, that organization.)

(b) whether an old list of headwords is copyrightable is actually rather
    tricky. While it might be copyrightable under the principle of
    compilation copyright, another important principle of copyright law
    is that things that are functionally determined are not "creative"
    and cannot be copyrighted. Thus, if someone creates a dictionary of
    words that seem useful or interesting to him, there is an element of
    creativity in the selection, which militates in favor of copyrightability.
    On the other hand, the list of headwords of, say, a dictionary of
    biological terms, is determined by what organisms are known to
    speakers of the language and is therefore arguably not subject to
    copyright. Interestingly, the list of headwords of a dictionary
    intended to be comprehensive is arguably not subject to copyright
    for the same reason, in contrast to the list of headwords of a
    dictionary that is explicitly not comprehensive.

(c) if you merely start from the list of headwords of an older dictionary,
    and add or substract to it substantially, your final list is
    arguably sufficiently transformative as not to infringe any copyright
    there might be on the original list. It is not a safe assumption that
    merely because you start from something copyrighted any modified
    version is an infringing derivative work. 

In all such matters, if you really want to know, you should consult
a lawyer specializing in copyright. This is a complicated area, one
in which national laws vary, and about which there is a good deal
of misinformation about. A major source of misinformation is the
publishing industry, which asserts claims that are much stronger
than are legally justified. (Many individuals are also sourcss of
misinformation in the other direction since they say what they think
the law ought to be rather than what it actually is.)

The other thing to consider is that what your legal rights are
and what it is advisable for you to do are not necessarily the same.
Even if you have a good case for the use you wish to make being
non-infringing, if the entity that holds the copyright, or thinks that
it holds it, is aggressive and well-financed, it may be financially
impossible for you to defend yourself, or at any rate, more trouble
than you wish to endure. An added factor here is that (in common
law systems such as those of the US and Canada) even if
you have a strong case, if there is no case law on point, resolving
the matter may require lengthy legal action. So discretion may be
the better part of valour unless you were well-heeled and feeling
ornery.

Bill




------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    lexicographylist-digest at yahoogroups.com 
    lexicographylist-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/