TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:ownership of works & FAQs From:Chuck Martin <techwriter -at- VNET -dot- IBM -dot- COM> Date:Mon, 11 Apr 1994 12:57:58 PDT
From what I know about copyright law, the answer could very well be:
it depends.
In FAQ files, information is taken from a multitude of authors, then
compiled and presented in an organized manner. Are the people who provided
the original information credited in the FAQ? Especially if the
information was originally presented well enough that it is repeated
substantially intact?
I remember something about a court case within the past two years about
a company that wanted to duplicate the information in a particular phone
book. As I recall, the particular court rules that the information could
be copied becuase it was just that, information. The copyright in this
case was rules to cover only the presentation method.
In a FAQ list, both information and presentation exist. Copyright would
cover only the presentation. If Walnut Creek is copying the FAQ lists
verbatim, then they are copying not only the information, but the
presentation. Without getting permission to do so, it would seem they
are violating copyright.
However, if they recompiled and represented the information in their
own style, that would be OK.
I don't think that the method of publication has anything to do with
the issue. According to the 1978 copyright law, anything I produce is
copyrighted, whether or not it is actually published. Except for work
for hire, I own the rights to even the personal letters I write. Because
something is published on an electronic medium does not exempt it from
being copyrighted.
But the point about Wanut Creek simply "goofing" can be troubling,
especially if it is true they got permission from some authors, but not
others. How many other companies can be allowed the same latitude?
And if I were an author of a FAQ list, compiled in my own time to freely
help others, I would not feel very good about others profiting from my
work without compensating me. That's probably the bottom line for the
copyright law: appropriate compensation for work done.
Chuck Martin
Information Developer, IBM
techwriter -at- vnet -dot- ibm -dot- com
