Fwd: [Foundation-l] Fair Use and Registered Trademarks

Mon Jul 11 01:44:00 UTC 2005

Robert Scott Horning wrote:

> Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:
>
>>> We never had to make any settlement with Britannica, or with Oxford,
>>> when they complained about "The Oxford Book Of English Verse," as they
>>> never asked us to.  Oxford *did* blow some smoke about the OED, but it
>>> was just that, and a decade ago, as I recall.
>>>
>>> I think we will post the first page of the original OED, to test  
>>> the winds,
>>> esp. since I own a first edition, and can thus prove it is from 1888.
>>>
>>> We should be able to publish nearly all of the first edition,  
>>> except those
>>> few volumes published after 1922. . .I can send a list, if you like.
>>>
>>> I should add that PG has TWO different teams working on the  
>>> Britannica,
>>> and the other one mentions the name much more.
>>>
>>> I got one message from the ex-CEO of Britannica, whom I know through
>>> other means, and explained that I had had nothing to do with the  
>>> second one.
>>>
>>> mh
>>
> I am curious what prompted the inclusion of the previously mentioned 
> legal disclaimer in with PG texts for Encyclopedia Britannica then?  I 
> know a good CYA is always in order, but it seemed a little extreme in 
> this case, particularly because content was removed.  There must be 
> more to the story than what Michael Hart is suggesting here.

You're welcome to explore the background yourself.  CYA could very well 
have been a motivating factor, but the ground that PG gave up was not 
that big.  When it comes to a 250 year old institution whose ability to 
survive much longer is questionable, granting them the opportunity to 
save face is a gracious act..

As for the OED, even some volumes published after 1922 are now in the 
public domain by the 70 year rule.

Ec