See what you think about this legal case: In 1996 Stuart Y. Silverstein and Scribner’s published a book of the uncollected poems of Dorothy Parker, the witty author and poet who belonged to the famous “Algonquin Round Table” group. The poems were in the public domain.
Three years later Penguin published a book containing the same material. Silverstein sued, claiming that assembling the poems is a creative act and that Penguin had violated his copyright (which applied to the format of the book, not the poems as such). He asked for damages of more than one million dollars. Penguin maintained that simply gathering uncollected poems is not a creative act covered by copyright.
Who do you think was right?
A summary judgment by a judge was in favor of Scribner. Penguin appealed and was granted a trial. Now a federal judge (the same one who originally ruled in favor of Silverstein) has ruled in favor of Penguin. He wrote: "The Court finds that Silverstein simply selected for inclusion in `Not Much Fun' all of the uncollected Parker poems that he could find and that this selection process involved no creativity."
Silverstein said he may appeal again, but if this decision stands it could be an important precedent for any writer who uses public domain material.