Except for the school, which is a public, gov't agency, and thus has no copyright powers. Anything produced by the school or its employees is automagically public domain.
So that he looks honest and the appeals could be driven all the way up? For free publicity of the ridiculousness of the award? To make the RIAA look like asses? To ensure that average Americans hear about this and write to their congressman? To get public opinion up on the idea of completely reverting back to the original form and intent of the copyright provision? Take your pick. It’s a gamble on long-term citizen activism.
I have to agree with parent here. In writing, if the source is sufficiently well-known, or even within the same genre, then direct citation is not really necessary. Modernists and Post-Mod poets are well known for this.
In the case of little known, or outside references, a subtle hint at origin is often enough and satisfies the conscience of the writer. There are instances, when a citation is appropriate. Such as an article from AP (I've written several poems based on such, and have included citations at the bottom of the page. Not only because I lift quotations, but because the original article provides a level of detail and understanding that is not appropriate to the poem itself). In many cases, a simple reference is less obtrusive and more effective, however.
At any rate, the real issue is representing someone else's work as one's own, without modification or reinterpretation to warrant it being a "new work," which is what our teen-aged author has perpetrated.
I know nobody RTFA, but has anyone read TFB?
Slashdot Mirror
Except for the school, which is a public, gov't agency, and thus has no copyright powers. Anything produced by the school or its employees is automagically public domain.
So that he looks honest and the appeals could be driven all the way up? For free publicity of the ridiculousness of the award? To make the RIAA look like asses? To ensure that average Americans hear about this and write to their congressman? To get public opinion up on the idea of completely reverting back to the original form and intent of the copyright provision? Take your pick. It’s a gamble on long-term citizen activism.
Not to mention the fact that they are businesses that make money on someone else's copyrighted work (all the student papers that get sent to them.
I have to agree with parent here. In writing, if the source is sufficiently well-known, or even within the same genre, then direct citation is not really necessary. Modernists and Post-Mod poets are well known for this. In the case of little known, or outside references, a subtle hint at origin is often enough and satisfies the conscience of the writer. There are instances, when a citation is appropriate. Such as an article from AP (I've written several poems based on such, and have included citations at the bottom of the page. Not only because I lift quotations, but because the original article provides a level of detail and understanding that is not appropriate to the poem itself). In many cases, a simple reference is less obtrusive and more effective, however. At any rate, the real issue is representing someone else's work as one's own, without modification or reinterpretation to warrant it being a "new work," which is what our teen-aged author has perpetrated. I know nobody RTFA, but has anyone read TFB?