On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Stephen Ryan wrote: > The legal terms are not copyrightable;
In some jurisdictions, perhaps, but not all. Moreover, in Veeck v SBCCI we see that only federal, state and local laws are denied the protection of copyrights (in addition to the classes of works specificaly denied by the constitution.) Moreover, the 5th circuit appears to hold that the Model Codes themselves are in fact copyrightable, but their incorporation into the local code removes the copyright to them. Now, you may be able to construct a set of arguments to convince me and/or others that legal documents are a specific class of work to which copyright protection is not available, but it's not obvious a priori. Don Armstrong -- Tell me something interesting about yourself. Lie if you have to. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/archives/batch20.php http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
