Printable View
Trapdoor Historical Consultations and Trapdoor Gun Serial Number Database Lookup Tool Well here is just one example from a parts and gun dealer in Nevada They have copied the ENTIRE 45-70 data into their data base and offer to look up your number for FREE but then go on to offer other for FEE services. Legal?? But it would make me a bit peeved.
In 1939 all of Colt's 1911A1 production went to Officer in Charge, Naval Supply Depot, Sewalls Point, Va.. There were four shipments totaling 3636 pistols. To the best of my knowledge this information was first published in 1991 by Charles Clawson in his Colt .45 Service Pistols , with the cooperation of Colt Firearms. Since that time the same information has shown up in Springfield Research Service data, and not sure how it is listed in Volume IV, but on the CD all 3636 pistols are listed separately as there are four different shipping dates. The information is identical on every pistol with the exception of the shipping date. Colt charges $100 for a letter giving you all the information on the pistol including the manufacture and shipping date. I don't know, but it sounds reasonable that Colt would not have turned this information over to SRS so that they could go into competition on selling the information.
You can go to Clawson's book and obtain the information, so if someone wants to know where Colt 1911A1 serial number 714171 was shipped, and you reply that it was shipped to the Navy at Sewall's Point, Virginia on November 25, 1939, have you violated the SRS policy of giving out their information?
Good point, Johnny. As you probably know, I'm not defending SRS, just posting what I understood the reason for them pulling the online access. I didn't agree with the decision, nor do I agree with the somewhat convoluted way you have to seek information or get a letter.
Copyright law is intentionally a bit fuzzy as it relates to what constitues fair use. Providing attribution is in no way an ironclad defense against infringement. It can be used to help make a case for innocent infringement. Think about it - if you wanted to steal somebody's work to sell for your own profit, what impediment would it be to mention the author? Think of movies, which are also copyrighted - they already contain attribution in visual form, but you can bet that the studio would go after you for infringement if you sell unlicensed DVDs at flea markets. (But it doesn't need to be the complete work to constitute a violation.)
Fair use defends users in the case of short quotes for reviews, some educational uses by institutions (I don't think the courts would smile on a claim of an internet forum being an education institution - though the medium is way too new to settle the law).
What is also at issue here is use of government documents. In US law, no single document paid for by the taxpayer is eligible for copyright (I understand in Britain the crown retains copyright of government documents). What SRS tries to do is stretch the "reorganzied, rearranged, interpreted" element. What is at stake in every copyright case is intellectual property. Did you create new information in the form of an article, a song, a movie, etc. that never existed before. If you created it, the use of it belongs to you (that's why simple attribution is for the most part meaningless).
Back to government documents - my reading would be that if you copied a page from a book that transcribed verbatim a page or portion of a page from an arsenal register, that would not be a copyright violation. Now if somebody published a book with a chart that combined serial number info from two separate government documents - say one column showed the production date that was obtained from contract records kept by the Ordnance Department and another column that showed issuance to a particular unit that came from unit records. This chart, or any row from it, would be subject to copyright. Why? Because it involved the intellectual effort to relate the two separate pieces of info. Explanatory notes provided by the author would be subject to copyright. A good reason to footnote or explain your sources.
In the age of the internet it is sometimes difficult to understand the difference between it being OK to show a local buyer your copy of a book, but not OK to copy the pertinent page to email (or post on a forum or Gunbroker). The magic word is 'reproduce.'
Copyright is serious - after the author establishes he is the rightful owner of the copyright the defendant is presumed guilty and has to prove his innocence and also has to pay the plaintiff's legal fees. In addition to these, if economic damages are shown (like if somebody copies movie DVDs for sale - books have usually been too expensive to reproduce one at a time, but that may be changing too), plaintiff gets 3x the demonstrated loss. (I am not a lawyer).
As far as the discussion goes, I don't see where fair use even enters into the SRS records. The information is facts which cannot be copyrighted, taken from government records which cannot be copyrighted and no one can own this information just because they looked it up. The manner in which the information is arranged and presented is certainly copyrightable, but not the information alone. If someone wants to know the full information found by SRS, it is certainly only fair to pay to receive that information.
It is my understanding the threats involved anyone providing any information found in SRS data, but I never saw that in print.
J.P. is right on the money. The short story is that SRS's claim to copyright protection for a compilation of public domain data is without merit and would not be enforceable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Peppers
The relevant legal finding was delivered by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Feist Publications, Inc.. v. Rural Telephone Service, Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) In Feist v. Rural, the Court ruled that information alone, without a minimum of original creativity, cannot be protected by copyright. The basics of the case involved the commercial publication (by Feist) of a regional telephone directory containing information derived almost entirely from the directory published by a local phone company (Rural). For an overview of the case see Feist v. Rural - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and for a a complete transcript of Court's ruling see FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
A later case, Assessment Technologies v. Wiredata (2003), the Seventh Appeals Court extended the legal principle to the compilation of data in electronic databases. In that case, the Appeals Court ruled that copyright law cannot be used to prevent the copying of factual data that are in the public domain, even when the data are accessible only through copyrighted software. For an overview of the case see Assessment Technologies v. Wiredata - The IT Law Wiki and for a a complete transcript of the Appeal Court's ruling see 350 F3d 640 Assessment Technologies of Wi Llc v. Wiredata Inc | OpenJurist
Cheers,
Peconga in Boise, Idaho
In fairness to the founder of Springfield Research Service, the late Frank Mallory, copyright law has changed over the years and the rulings I cite above came long after the publication of his first "D.C.M. Rifle Sales" book in 1976.
Cheers,
Peconga in Boise, Idaho