Biddleblog

Biddle recently debuted a new exhibit for Spring and Summer 2007, "Copyright 2.0," which is currently on display in the reference area of the library.

As a previous post about a new exhibit at Biddle suggested, copyright is an area of the law in which Biddle librarians and the larger Penn Law community share a special interest.

Last Friday, when most of you were probably studying for or taking exams, Drexel University Libraries sponsored a symposium on Intellectual Property Rights. Ed Greenlee, Bill Draper, Pat Callahan, and I were in attendance.

A recent program on Public Television featured an interesting story about the conflict between intellectual property rights and traditional knowledge.

This video discusses the history of the "Amen break," widely considered a foundational beat of hip hop and electronica, and how it serves as a metaphor for debates surrounding copyright of music not strictly available in the public domain. It's a long video, so if you're curious, the copyright analysis starts around the 10 minute mark. (More after the jump.)

In 2008, you're likely see a lot more case law available free of charge on the web. (More after the jump.)

Welcome back! There's a nice debate online this week between a Columbia Law School professor and an entertainment industry executive regarding copyright and privacy. (More after the jump.)

Last week, the Copyright Office's Section 108 Study Group released a report that suggests changes in current copyright law for the benefit of librarians and their patrons. (More after the jump.)

Did you know that October 14 was Open Access Day?  No?  That's ok, because Ed Greenlee and I didn't either until we were asked by Shawn Martin, Head of Scholarly Communication at Van Pelt library, to commemorate the event by giving a talk to the librarians on examples of Open Access in legal research and scholarship.  While the presentation was geared towards our library colleagues, we provided links to some important legal research tools that are available free of charge on the Internet.  They include:

Cornell University's Legal Information Institute.  The Legal Information Institute is a web portal to a large number of free web sites containing primary legal materials: case opinions, statutes, and administrative materials.

THOMAS.  The THOMAS site is maintained by the Federal Government and offers a wide range of legislative materials, from various versions of bills, to selected hearing transcripts and legislative history summaries along with hot links to key documents.

The Directory of Open Access Law Journals.  This site provides a list of institutions participating in the Open Access Law Program.

"Wikibooks" and virtual casebooks.  Wikibooks is an open source for a wide range of texts. At the present they offer a limited number of books in the area of law but Wikibooks will be a growing resource for open access legal texts.

Wex.  Wex is like Wikipedia but for legal information: it attempts to provide a community-edited legal encylopedia and dictionary.

eLangdell.  eLangell is an open source project of CALI (Computer Assisted Legal Instruction) program and the Berkman Center at Harvard Law School. Just initiated in June of this year, it will offer a variety of materials including multimedia course materials and case books.

Opencongress.org.  Part of the Sunlight Foundation's suite of free government information databases, Opencongress.org is an innovative example of bringing Web 2.0 tools like blogging, RSS feeds, and social bookmarking to the public policy arena.

As our presentation demonstrated, there are a great many resources for legal research out there that aren't named Westlaw or Lexis-Nexis.  And they are doing some innovative things in the way that legal information is presented online.  None of this would be possible without the Open Access movement's committment to unfettered access to, and use of, information resources.

I recently helped a student use an item in our Rare Books Collection to verify a citation that a professor had recorded for a forthcoming law review article.  One of the references she wanted to check was the original publication date of the volume.  When we looked on the back side of the title page, we discovered the following statement:

(You can click on the image to make it larger.)

Needless to say, my researcher was a little confused--this lengthy narrative looks almost nothing like the modern convention for declaring copyright: that ubiquitous symbol, ©.

It may be hard to believe, but the copyright symbol was not formally adopted until 1979, when copyright laws were overhauled.  Before then, owners of works had to petition the Copyright Office to copyright their works. 

 What looks to modern eyes like an arcane, roundabout way of stating something very simple was actually a necessary explanation that the author of a work had been granted copyright by the Copyright Office. 

An old professor of mine in college once quipped that Charles Darwin was a great thinker but "he needed an editor."  19th Century prose has often been described as florid and verbose.  Copyright notices of that era are no exception, suggesting that even something this routine could take on a dramatic flair.