Collective rights: Quote from US law

Jorge found the following text, which is the actual
definition from the 
U.S. Copyright Act:

------------------------------------------------------------
-
Section 101.  A "collective work" is a work, such
as a periodical issue, 
anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of
contributions, 
constituting separate and independent works in themselves,
are assembled 
into a collective whole.

Section 201(c).  Contributions to Collective Works. -
Copyright in each 
separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from
copyright in 
the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the
author of the 
contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the
copyright or of 
any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the
collective work is 
presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing
and 
distributing the contribution as part of that particular
collective work, 
any revision of that collective work, and any later
collective work in the 
same series.
------------------------------------------------------------


With collective works, one assigns the copyright to
*someone*, often the 
organization under whose auspices the collection is made. It
wouldn't be 
unreasonable to place the IETF trust in this role.

The conclusion of the discussion seemed to be that it's
possible to define 
an RFC as a collective work (between the RFC Editor and the
contributors), 
but that it didn't make sense to consider each and every I-D
to be a 
collective work (some are).

So - if we call RFCs collective works, placing the (c) IETF
Trust on RFCs 
makes sense; placing the (c) IETF Trust on all
internet-drafts does not 
make sense.

What do people think we should do?

                    Harald




_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

> So - if we call RFCs collective works, placing the (c)
IETF Trust on 
> RFCs makes sense; placing the (c) IETF Trust on all
internet-drafts does 
> not make sense.
> 
> What do people think we should do?

"If published as an RFC, this document will be
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007)."

     Brian


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

At 1:33 AM +0200 7/24/07, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>So - if we call RFCs collective works, placing the
(c) IETF Trust on RFCs makes sense; placing the (c) IETF
Trust on all internet-drafts does not make sense.
>>
>>What do people think we should do?
>
>"If published as an RFC, this document will be
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007)."

Maybe:

"If published as an RFC, the RFC will be Copyright (C)
The IETF Trust (YYYY)." ?

If the collective work is among the contributors and RFC
Editor, we have to be clear
that the Copyright is on the end-result document.

That nit picked, I think Brian has the right idea and that
ultimately we need
Jorge to tell us what the legal language is to make that
work.  Having us come
up with the exact language hasn't helped much in the
past.....
			regards,
					Ted

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <haraldalvestrand.no>
To: <ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 4:04 PM
Subject: Collective rights: Quote from US law


> Jorge found the following text, which is the actual
definition from the 
> U.S. Copyright Act:
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
-
> Section 101.  A "collective work" is a work,
such as a periodical issue, 
> anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of
contributions, 
> constituting separate and independent works in
themselves, are assembled 
> into a collective whole.
>
> Section 201(c).  Contributions to Collective Works. -
Copyright in each 
> separate contribution to a collective work is distinct
from copyright in 
> the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in
the author of the 
> contribution.

Which means that each contributor must convey that IP to the
IETF. Not just 
the submitter. The IETF's records process should not rely on
any proofs of 
'that the submitter actually held power of attorney' when
simply having some 
email based query process should suffice as 'at least an
effort' at 
establishing providance and title for those sub-somponents
of the group 
effort.

>In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright
or of any rights 
>under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work
is presumed to have 
>acquired only the privilege of reproducing and
distributing the 
>contribution as part of that particular collective work,
any revision of 
>that collective work, and any later collective work in
the same series.
>
------------------------------------------------------------

>
> With collective works, one assigns the copyright to
*someone*, often the 
> organization under whose auspices the collection is
made. It wouldn't be 
> unreasonable to place the IETF trust in this role.

except that its rare that all the members of the team meet
and sign a 
document conveying interest to the group and then from the
group to the 
IETF. So what then proves this?

>
> The conclusion of the discussion seemed to be that it's
possible to define 
> an RFC as a collective work (between the RFC Editor and
the contributors), 
> but that it didn't make sense to consider each and
every I-D to be a 
> collective work (some are).

Uh yeah they are. The work product of the IETF's WG's is
vetting - vetting 
which is focused at an initiative. That said RFC's, the
Archive's and all 
documents which were not submitted by the workproduct of a
single 
individuals, would by definition be collaborative works.

>
> So - if we call RFCs collective works, placing the (c)
IETF Trust on RFCs 
> makes sense; placing the (c) IETF Trust on all
internet-drafts does not 
> make sense.

I thought that anything where there are more than two
contributor's 
participating creates a collaborative work, so that includes
pretty much 
anything except I-D's that are written by a single
individual only. So the 
real issue is how many author's are accredited in the
filing. If there is 
only one... then the work may not be collaborative eh?
>
> What do people think we should do?
>
>                    Harald
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wgietf.org
> https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg 


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Questions -

    1)    Is any work-product which is derived from
communications between 
two or more parties an 'Individual work' or a 'collective
work' because the 
copyright and release processes will be different between
them???

    2)    Does work-product submitted from a single
individual, but that has 
effort provided by multiple sources constitute a 'collective
work' as well, 
for instance, if a single writer were to take other IP's
from other IETF 
efforts, or from external to the IETF and was to include
them in their IETF 
Submission, would that then be a collective work or not?

As to why? - Collective Works need ALL of the AUTHOR'S
agreement's to have 
their IP's included in the work, and in the case where that
right is 
assigned to the IETF TRUST, then they ***MUST*** all
individually agree to 
this, no single individual MAY represent the rights of
others before the 
IETF without a formal and durable Power of Attorney to act
in those matters 
being in force.

Just my two cents...

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ted Hardie" <hardiequalcomm.com>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpentergmail.com>; "Harald Tveit 
Alvestrand" <haraldalvestrand.no>
Cc: <ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: Collective rights: Quote from US law


> At 1:33 AM +0200 7/24/07, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>So - if we call RFCs collective works, placing
the (c) IETF Trust on RFCs 
>>>makes sense; placing the (c) IETF Trust on all
internet-drafts does not 
>>>make sense.
>>>
>>>What do people think we should do?
>>
>>"If published as an RFC, this document will be
Copyright (C) The IETF 
>>Trust (2007)."
>
> Maybe:
>
> "If published as an RFC, the RFC will be Copyright
(C) The IETF Trust 
> (YYYY)." ?
>
> If the collective work is among the contributors and
RFC Editor, we have 
> to be clear
> that the Copyright is on the end-result document.
>
> That nit picked, I think Brian has the right idea and
that ultimately we 
> need
> Jorge to tell us what the legal language is to make
that work.  Having us 
> come
> up with the exact language hasn't helped much in the
past.....
> regards,
> Ted
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wgietf.org
> https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg 


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg