NFHS 2012 Rules Book

[HLin NC]

From the US Copyright Office:

What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

I do believe COPYING would be considered reproduction and providing said copies would be distributing.

Feel free to argue with the agency of the Federal gov't about their definition of what they do. Somehow, I won't be surprised.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

From the US Copyright Office:

What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

I do believe COPYING would be considered reproduction and providing said copies would be distributing.

Feel free to argue with the agency of the Federal gov't about their definition of what they do. Somehow, I won't be surprised.

But that applies only to works protected by copyright. Merely slapping a copyright notice on public domain material doesn't copyright it.

There is some original writing in the Fed rule book that they can protect by their copyright. The actual rules themselves, no. It's like with that Red Circle Media example I gave; about the only thing their copyright protects on their 80 yr. old movies is the notice saying it's copyrighted by Red Circle Media!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But that applies only to works protected by copyright. Merely slapping a copyright notice on public domain material doesn't copyright it.

There is some original writing in the Fed rule book that they can protect by their copyright. The actual rules themselves, no. It's like with that Red Circle Media example I gave; about the only thing their copyright protects on their 80 yr. old movies is the notice saying it's copyrighted by Red Circle Media!

Are you really arguing this? Seriously dude.

Peace

[bigjohn]

He has argued it well for a while now and I applaud him. You can't make the rules of the game millions of kids play, illegal to copy. That is absurd.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

He has argued it well for a while now and I applaud him. You can't make the rules of the game millions of kids play, illegal to copy. That is absurd.

Actually you can if it is your publication.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Actually you can if it is your publication.

First of all, copyright applies only to original material. The rules makers of the various USAn codes started with a single rule book and by degrees amended them, sometimes differently, and sometimes borrowing language from each other. Over most of that time nobody thought of putting a copyright notice on; that was a recent development. (The USFL rule book was 99% verbatim NFL's, yet they each had a copyright notice. You'll notice neither tried to sue the other over infringement!) When a work has very little original content, and that which is original is interleaved in such a way that it can't be easily picked out from the old material, even the original content is not protectable. What Fed and the other rules makers do have is some original stuff printed in the same volume as the rules, at the beginning and the end of the book, sandwiching the rules themselves, and those are the only parts copyright could legitimatelhy apply to -- but who even wants those parts?

Second, copyright is for literary expression, not for useful items such as instructions. A proprietary game or equipment for it can be patented, either utility or design patents, but the instructions for it cannot effectively be protected by copyright.

Third, when it comes to rules writing, the nature of it is such that there are usually very few says to say a thing differently and have it mean the same thing yet be as concise. In such cases, copyright has been held not to apply, because we know you're allowed to copy ideas, but it would be silly in such a case to insist on altering their wording.

Go ahead, compare the language in contemporary Fed & NCAA football rules in many passages. How could they possibly stand together if copyright applied to them? Each one could say they were being infringed by the other, but we know the truth, which is that copyright does not apply to their actual rules. It may apply to some ancillary material in their rule books, but not the rules themselves.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

First of all, copyright applies only to original material. The rules makers of the various USAn codes started with a single rule book and by degrees amended them, sometimes differently, and sometimes borrowing language from each other. Over most of that time nobody thought of putting a copyright notice on; that was a recent development. (The USFL rule book was 99% verbatim NFL's, yet they each had a copyright notice. You'll notice neither tried to sue the other over infringement!) When a work has very little original content, and that which is original is interleaved in such a way that it can't be easily picked out from the old material, even the original content is not protectable. What Fed and the other rules makers do have is some original stuff printed in the same volume as the rules, at the beginning and the end of the book, sandwiching the rules themselves, and those are the only parts copyright could legitimatelhy apply to -- but who even wants those parts?

Second, copyright is for literary expression, not for useful items such as instructions. A proprietary game or equipment for it can be patented, either utility or design patents, but the instructions for it cannot effectively be protected by copyright.

Third, when it comes to rules writing, the nature of it is such that there are usually very few says to say a thing differently and have it mean the same thing yet be as concise. In such cases, copyright has been held not to apply, because we know you're allowed to copy ideas, but it would be silly in such a case to insist on altering their wording.

Go ahead, compare the language in contemporary Fed & NCAA football rules in many passages. How could they possibly stand together if copyright applied to them? Each one could say they were being infringed by the other, but we know the truth, which is that copyright does not apply to their actual rules. It may apply to some ancillary material in their rule books, but not the rules themselves.

An expert legal opinion.