Selected recent postings on this dispute, about which I posted here.
1) From ADF Alliance Alert: Oregon threatens over statutes copyright? (with a link to this post at The Volokh Conspiracy (and associated Comments)
2) J’s Scratchpad: James Grimmelman: Copyright, Technology, and Access to the Law: Old Problems and New Solutions
If you want to follow this story, here are direct links and suggested searches:
1) Further discussion of this topic can be found at Jack Bog’s Blog, see post and comments here: “Don’t you dare post Oregon laws on the internet!”
2) See also Loaded Orygun post, here.
The following represents my opinion, from my perspective as an Oregon public law librarian:
My previous posts on this subject are here and here and here.
I’ve been reading, among other things, the blog Comments about the Oregon Legislative Counsel “copyright” dispute and my reaction yesterday and still today is: we don’t have all the facts so please don’t jump to conclusions.
Who said the law wasn’t fun? See the Fair Use Blog.
Excerpt from one post: Fantasy Baseball 2, Real Baseball Zero:
“By Michael Kahn
The Eighth Circuit handed down its much awaited fantasy baseball decision in CBC Distribution & Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., the appeal of the district court’s summary judgment in favor of CBC. CBC had brought a declaratory judgment case in St. Louis to establish its right to use — without license or compensation — the names and statistical information of real major league baseball players in its fantasy baseball products. The players had counterclaimed, maintaining that CBC’s fantasy baseball products violated their rights of publicity.”
The Library Law blog (not to be confused with the Law Librarian Blog 
takes comments on this question (see full post and comments here):
“I wonder if you can help me locate information on the following scenario. I borrow a book from a library (public or school) which was published before 1923 and is therefore in the public domain. I would like to make a digital image copy of this book both for my own use and to distribute freely to others.
Assuming there’s no license or other relevant & explicit limitation on borrowers’ use of library materials, is it necessary to obtain permission from the library before doing this? Is it common for libraries to create such limitations regarding public domain works?”
The Library Law blog is chock full of useful posts:
Abandoned Property Guide with a link to the Abandoned Property Project,
It’s not enough to know your own country’s copyright laws …
From Library Link of the day (Nov 8, 2007 posting), a link to this story: The Day the Music Died, on BBC News.
Excerpts:
Also from Virtual Chase:
‘Organizations Issue “Orphan Works” Statement
(30 Oct) The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, the International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers and the Professional/Scholarly Division of the Association of American Publishers have issued a statement on orphan works, or copyrighted materials whose owners cannot be found. The opinion of the trade associations “is that private market solutions are almost always to be preferred, since they are the most likely to provide tangible results, and that solution is put forward in the new ‘safe harbor’ document. Users who conduct such a search where the owner of such a work is later identified, will be subject only to a normal license fee and will not be subject to any statutory, punitive or special fees or damages.”‘
While searching for information on Arthur Leff’s classic, “Swindling & Selling,” my hyperlink tracks led me to wikihow ( and How to Import Old Public Domain Books to wikihow) and to How to Draw a Monkey and then on to where I really planned to go, Stanford’s Copyright Renewal Database (an interview, by Mary Minow of Library Law, with the database’s founders can be found here).
Ain’t librarianship (and research) grand! Now, if only someone would reprint Leff’s Swindling and Selling. Sigh.
One of the latest course books we received from OLI is, “Licensing Intellectual Property: Basics and Applications in Media and Technology Transfer,” from a June 1st, 2007, program. This sounds horribly dry and specialized, but it’s not! The contents are funny, informative, well-organized, and cover everything from, if not soup to nuts, then at least from Patent Pitfalls to My Space to “Open Sourcery.” There is even a Checklist (lawyers and librarians love Checklists!) on “Copyright Tips for Using Content of Others,” by attorney Gary Glisson.
My library purchases many course books from the OSB, OLI, and MBA courses that Oregon attorneys are required to take. Some of these course books are terrific stand-alone research tools. Not every attorney/teacher does a good job with printed teaching material, but those who do – well, we thank them!
The other attorneys who participated in this particular CLE include, Julie Reed, David McFeeters-Krone, Paula Holm Jensen, Jeff Pitzer, Michael Heilbronner, Kohel Have, and Brian Jamison.
Oregon Legal Research Blog