From: jewell@Data-IO.COM (Cal Jewell)
Subject: Re: Sheets (LONG)
Followup-To: rec.sport.pro-wrestling
Reply-To: jewell@Data-IO.com
Organization: Data I/O Corporation
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:19:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.160036.20443@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dkempste@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David N Kempster) writes:
#Sean Ryan shows us once again that he will bitch about anything if it doesn't 
#come from one of the net heros. Ryan complains that Wholesale coping of 
#information from sheets is inappropriate. He says it is a copyright violation.
#Now I have carefully checked my copies of the Observer and I see no indication 
#anywhere that it is copyrighted and would be supprized if it was. It costs 
#money to copyright and it is not worth it for a newsletter. Also, and someone 
#who knows can correct me if I am wrong, you cannot copyright news items.

Well, you are right and you are wrong.

You are correct in saying that "you cannot copyright news items."
Copyright law expands further on your assertion and states that you
can't copyright common knowledge. ie, you can't copyright the fact
that WCW is having a PPV wrestling event on Sunday, October 25.
However, you can give the event a catchy name and copyright that. 
ie, Halloween Havoc. To further muddy the copyright waters, you can
copyright the descriptions and accounts of the game (ever listen to
a baseball game?), but you can't copyright the scores, stats, etc.

With printed/written material, the general rule of thumb was established
by the Bern Convention (is that the correct name?) to which most of the
industrialized nations are signatories. Specifically, an author has an
implied copyright on his work until he specifically relinquishes the
copyright. For example, writing a haiku and putting a copyright 
statement on it is the same as writing a haiku and NOT putting a 
copyright statement on it. Although the difference is essentially null
at publication time, there is a great deal of difference when you have
to sue somebody for copyright infringement. 

(I'm not going to get into the nuances of protecting your copyright.
It's too complicated and doesn't belong here. If you'd like, we can
take this to e-mail and discuss it further.)

As far as paying for a copyright, that is called a Registered 
Copyright, which is symbolized by the (R) or "R in the circle" glyph.
In this case, you pay money and a firm does something similar to a
patent search. The make sure nobody else has that term/phrase/whatever
registered and then, if nobody has grabbed it, you get the Registered
Copyright. Yes, you can have the same item Registered by two different
entities. Take Lexis for example, it is the TM of the company that
makes the Lexis car and of an on-line database for lawyers.

#I don't think it is offensive or inappropite for people to give sheet 
#summaries. I doubt it will mean that people who otherwise would have would not 
#subscribe. There is still much more information in most sheets then could be 
#reported on the net.

Agreed. Summaries are useful, and they are legal as long as the 
article is not quoted verbatim and is kept true to the original
content and meaning. Further, the info to the sheets helps start/sustain
interesting discussion and often provides interesting insight into
the backroom operations of professional wrestling.

#What I do think is offensive and inappropite is the habit that almost everyone 
#here has of not attributing where they got information. Even the net heros 
#fail to give their sources. I think everyone should make an effort to say where
#they got thier information. Apart from being ethical, it would give "newbies" 
#an answer to a question that they often have. That is, where did you get your 
#information? A lot of people rattle off info about peoples contracts. "Lugar
#has a contract with WCW until 1993." or "So and so was fired" or whatever and
#never tell where they got the information. Unless you collected this data
#yourself (by calling or whatever) or it was on nationally telivised show, then
#you should list your sources.

Good point. Knowing the source of information helps judge whether
you should believe it, take it with a grain of salt, or ignore it.
For example, who would you trust more: Joe Average User, Dave Meltzer
or Bill Apter?

Personally, I'd give more creedence to Meltzer's stuff than I would
to Apter's stuff.


Whew. That was longer that I had originally intended. This copyright
stuff is, to say the least, confusing. Precisely the stuff on which
laywers thrive. (No, I'm not a lawyer.)

I'm sure the folks on misc.legal would be able to answer any more
copyright questions.

ObWrestling: Is anybody else getting tired of seeing Teddy Long
on the WCW broadcasts? He's got no camera presence. Hell, I'd 
rather listen Eric Bischoff or Al Hayes than hear Teddy Long talk
to his "homies" (sp?).

-- 
Cal...                      "Lawyers should never marry other lawyers.
                             This is called inbreeding, from which 
jewell@Data-IO.COM           comes idiot children and more lawyers."