Talk:Ronald J. Rychlak

Untitled

The "Publications" section is a direct copy-and-paste from his web page at the Ole Miss Law School. Not allowed, as an explicit copyright notice is on this page. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the list of publications from the article pending resolution of this matter. The tag should be removed anyway because the remainder of the article has no plausible reason for speedy deletion. Now, I am no copyright attorney, but I believe that a mere list of a writer's publication is not subject to copyright protection. It is for this reason that user:Avruch removed the first speedy deletion tag from this article.

Copyright protection requires a minimal level of creativity. For that reason mere lists are not given protection. The Supreme Court decided in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service 111 S.Ct. 1282 (1991) that the typical listing in a white pages directory was not subject to copyright protection because it lacked the minimal creativity required for protection. For the same reason other types of listing are not protectable. Mere listings of contents or ingredients have been held not copyrightable, because they are "forms of expression dictated solely by functional consideration." 1 NIMMER 201[B] at 2-14. See also, 37 C.F.R. 202.1(a);Kitchens of Sara Lee, Inc. v. Nifty Foods Corporation, 206 F.2d 541 (2d Cir. 1959). In Perma Greetings, Inc. v. Russ Berrie & Co. 598 F. Supp. 445, 448 (E.D. Mo. 1984), the court held that drink coasters containing short familiar phrases were not subject to copyright, noting that "phrases and expressions conveying an idea that is typically expressed in a limited number of stereotypic fashions, are not subject to copyright protection." at 448, quoting Alexander v. Haley, 60 F. Supp. 40, (S.D.N.Y. 1978). In Magic Marketing Inc. v. Mailing Services of Pittsburgh, Inc., 634 F. Supp. 769 (W.D. Pa. 1986), the court held that envelopes with instructions printed on them were not copyright-able. The court held that instructions on the envelope that were "nothing more than a direction or instruction for use" are not protected. In Ashton-Tate v. Ross, 916 F.2d 516, 521-22 (9th Cir. 1990), aff'q, 728 F. Supp. 597, 602 (N.D. Cal. 1989), the court held that a one-page handwritten list of user commands that were incorporated as part of the user interface was not a copyrightable part of the computer program.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong but I believe a mere list of a writer's publications from his CV is not subject to copyright, even if copied verbatim.Mamalujo (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not in court here, counselor. Cite all the case law you want, but Wikipedia policy precludes copying and pasting any web page, with certain exceptions for those created by various federal governments and others considered to be in the public domain. The list in the article was a direct copy and paste, including formatting and external links, of a page that had an explicit copyright notice by the University of Mississippi. Removing the list and posting a link to the Ole Miss page in question solves the problem nicely, and reduces the length of the article to a more manageable size. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

to explain further, a complete list of publications such as the one present would rarely be appropriate content in a Wikipedia biographical article; we rather use a selected list of major works. Similarly, we have a manual of style WP:MOS, and we present the material in one of our accustomed formats, which always includes the ISBN if available. In my opinion, it would be appropriate to include a list of the books, both legal and religious, preferably separated, in formal bibliographic format as well as mentioning one or two of the most important of general interest in the article, and a selection of other key formal publications. We normally do not include such publications as book reviews, interviews, and essays. Reallyhick is quite correct that the link is the appropriate way to present that material.

I think however (for the record) he has slightly misinterpreting the position on copy paste--we do not prohibit it altogether--there are times when it is appropriate to do it, though almost always a better result can be achieved otherwise. As to whether such a list is a copyright violation, at Wikipedia it is frequently claimed that they are at least sufficiently close to one to be avoided & that anything that can even conceivably be argued to be a possible copyvio be treated as one--a way of dealing with copyright that I very emphatically do not share--I think the fullest reasonable interpretation of permissible use should be followed. But in any case I do have to say that in my opinion placing the deletion tag on the article was a clear misinterpretation of policy: the policy with articles containing copyvio is to delete the copyvio, not the entire article--unless it should be entirely copyvio and cannot be readily rewritten.

But no harm done. That's why our deletion policy usually involves at least two people.

and, Mamalujo, I urge you to participate in some of our copyright discussions--expertise here is very helpful. See WP:COPYRGHT and related pages. DGG (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite but I am a very far cry from an expert on that subject. No doubt there are editors, both attorneys and laymen, with good working knowledge of the subject. Plus, I tend not to edit on legal subjects too much. I do this for fun and that for a living. Mamalujo (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)