Dr. Ronald B. Standler Lawyer in Massachusetts Copyright Law
I am licensed to practice law in Massachusetts,
and admitted to practice in all state and federal courts in Massachusetts,
as well as admitted to practice at the U.S. Supreme Court.
I concentrate in copyright law, particularly as applied to:
computer software,
content of the Internet,
plagiarism,
protecting authors and copyright owners for their scholarly work,
copying of books and periodicals for use in teaching at schools, colleges, and universities,
copying of books and periodicals for use in scholarly research, and
copyright on sheet music in education, especially baroque or classical music.
I can easily travel to towns in northeastern Massachusetts,
or to the Boston area, including Cambridge, MA.
About Dr. Standler
By way of introduction, I:
programmed computers since 1968,
earned a Ph.D. in physics in 1977,
was a professor of electrical engineering for ten years,
am the author of more than 30 published archival technical papers, one book, and more than
60 scholarly essays at my websites
am a webmaster continuously since 1996 (which gives me an understanding of copyright issues
on the Internet),
read orchestral scores since 1965 and used Finale music software since 1992 (which gives me
an understanding of music copyright issues),
am an attorney in Massachusetts since December 1998.
My experience means that I personally understand the
importance of protecting intellectual property rights of
authors and programmers by using copyright law.
Plagiarism is a serious problem for authors.
I am interested in representing plaintiffs whose work has been plagiarized.
My homepage at www.rbs2.com/
contains links to documents with my credentials,
my current fees, how to contact me, and
links to my essays on other topics in law.
My Essays About Copyright Law
Essays on this website are provided only to provide general information
and to communicate my personal comments on interesting topics in
law, technology, and society. Essays on this website are neither
legal advice nor legal opinion. Accessing this website or reading
documents on this website does not create an attorney-client
relationship. See my disclaimer
for details.
All essays at this website are protected by copyright.
I have posted my Terms Of Service
for printing, copying, and distributing my essays
at this website.
I am an attorney only in Massachusetts, so I can not provide
legal advice to people in other states of the USA, unless they have been
injured or sued in Massachusetts, or unless your local attorney hires me as a consultant.
However, I have posted the following hints for
how to find an attorney.
Copyrights are part of intellectual property law,
and are intended to not only give authors control over their work,
but also provide an economic reward to authors through licensing fees or royalties.
The use of photocopy machines since the mid-1960s and the development of the Internet since
the mid-1990s has led to a culture of widespread copyright infringement.
My summary of copyright law in the USA
considers copyright infringement on the Internet, as well as
fair use, photocopy machines, and plagiarism.
My essay on
moral rights of authors discusses legal
rights granted to authors in France, Germany, Italy, and other countries,
but which are absent from law in the USA.
My long essay on plagiarism
in colleges in the USA discusses legal aspects and academic policy. Because I specialize in
both higher-education law and copyright law, I look at plagiarism
in colleges and universities from two perspectives.
Williams & Wilkins v. U.S., 487 F.2d 1345 (Ct.Cl. 1973) is the first case in the USA
involving photocopying of copyrighted journals by a library. I have posted the entire
appellate opinion,
together with my annotations and critical analysis of this case.
I have also posted the entire trial court's opinion,
from 172 U.S.P.Q. 670 (Ct.Cl. 1972), with my annotations.
Law (e.g., statutes, judicial opinions, government regulations) in the USA is not
copyrightable subject matter, although — bizarrely — at least 17 states
in the USA attempt to copyright either their statutes or judicial opinions, and
for-profit companies publish most of the law used in the USA.
My essay traces the history of copyright for law in the USA,
and explains the recent rise of public-domain citation formats for judicial opinions.
music copyright law
My main webpage on
copyright of music discusses copyright of sheet music
and sound recordings. I have also posted a collection of
links to resources on music copyright law.
I posted a provocative essay on defects in current copyright law in the USA that might not
protect a new edition
of public-domain works (e.g., musical compositions by J.S. Bach). This essay also discusses
the legal standard for copyrightability of derivative works (e.g., arrangements) in music, and
the minimum length of a copyrightable theme in music.
I am not encouraging anyone to copy new editions of old music.
The only purpose of this essay is to encourage enactment of a federal statute to protect
the labor, skill, and expense of scholars who produce new editions.
copyright for neither ideas nor facts
It is a fundamental rule of copyright law that
ideas are not protected by copyright.
My essay traces the history of the rule, including the reasons given by judges for this rule.
I criticize the lack of a definition for ideas in copyright cases.
I also explain the idea-expression merger and its history.
A section of my essay compares U.S. patent law (which protects some useful ideas)
with copyright law.
There is weak or nonexistent copyright protection for nonfiction works, including compilations of
facts, because judges in the USA decided that facts are not copyrightable.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1985 agreed with the rule that facts are not copyrightable,
and reiterated that holding in the Feist case in 1991, which also held that telephone
directories were not copyrightable.
My long, technical essay on copyright of facts:
explains why the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Feist was wrong
traces the history of:
the rule that copyright does not protect facts (and criticizes that rule),
judicial remarks that copyright protects the "labor, skill, and expense" of authors and
unfair competition for misappropriation of an author's labor —
so-called "sweat of the brow" cases
briefly discusses the modern state law of unfair competition and its possible preemption by
federal copyright law
explains why independent creation is neither copyright infringement nor unfair competition, and
proposes amendments to the copyright statute.
As explained in my essay on copyright for facts, the current copyright law
(1) contains no protection for labor or expense for scholarly research,
and (2) weak or nonexistent protection for compilations of facts and nonfictional works.
Therefore, authors and publishers of nonfiction works should lobby Congress for protection.
After unauthorized copying occurs, it is too late to amend the copyright law.
I hope my essay on copyright for ideas and
my essay on copyright for facts
are useful to authors and publishers of:
online databases
research papers and reference books in mathematics, science, engineering, and medicine
nonfiction history books
textbooks
commentaries about law (including lists of citations to unfamiliar sources) and
maps.
I welcome consulting opportunities from attorneys who represent publishers or authors.
fair use
My long, technical essay on fair use
in copyright law cites many cases and law review articles.
I explain that many common practices by teachers and professors (especially photocopying
for distribution to students and downloading files from the Internet)
are actually copyright infringement.
I cite a number of cases from the U.S. Courts of Appeals that hold that copying an entire article, or
copying an entire chapter in a book, is never fair use.
Copyright 2009 by Ronald B. Standler
This document at http://www.rbs2.com/icopyr.htm
first posted 14 Jan 2009, revised 6 Mar 2010