Research Tip: Additional official and unofficial digital archived webpages and other sources of presidential documents exist or will soon come into existence. Check the usual suspects: Presidential libraries, Library of Congress, National Archives, branch of government archives (e.g. Judiciary, Congress, Executive), the Internet Archive, HathiTrust, university libraries and archives, nonprofit legal and government information databases, fee-based legal and government information databases, and librarians everywhere.
This seems to be a relevant post for us here at the Oregon Legal Research Blog given the most recent statewide and local Oregon difficulties (to put it mildly) public officials are having with the true meaning and spirit of our Public Records Laws. (And remember the 2006 Multnomah County Auditor’s report on eliminating barriers to access to public records? There are many more of those, er, aspirational public records proclamations, where that came from, local and statewide. Sigh.) (By the way, Auditor or “accountability” reports at many levels of government are a great research resource.)
These particular Massachusetts’ guidelines start off with this statement of their:
Excerpt: “In Supreme Court’s Style Manual is Private No More, Tony Mauro reports that the US Supreme Court Style Guide, 2013 ed. can be purchased through Amazon without Court approval because a court aficionado named Jack Metzler is making it available for sale under his own imprint. Metzler reportedly photocopied the 200+ page long manual in the Supreme Court’s law library….” [Link to full LLB2 blog post.]
The Digitization Projects Registry of U.S. Documents is an easy place to find hidden treasures!
Legal and Regulatory, Arts & Humanities, Business, Natural Science & Mathematics, Social Sciences, and more!
“The Digital Registry is a directory listing of U.S. Government publication digitization efforts. Its goal is to provide a comprehensive listing of all these digitization efforts….
Previous OLR blog post on building codes and Veeck (Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress, 293 F.3d 791 (5th Circuit, 2002)
The flux is at it again. You know, when some relatively rare topic arises in conversation and then it comes up again and again. (I blogged about the flux a long while ago, here, but I was in a chatty mood so it’s a longer post than you might be up for.)
Anyway, the topic of copywriting legal documents came up a couple of weeks ago, and then it came up again and then again. Today I ran across this article, while looking at a webpage on searching public records, that I linked to from the Law Librarian Blog:
1) Due Diligence in Drafting: Copyrights in Legal Documents, by Thomas J. Stueber. (This article can be found in other online and print publications.)
2) There is also this one: “The Highest Form of Flattery? Application of the Fair Use Defense against Copyright Claims for Unauthorized Appropriation of Litigation Documents,” by Davida H. Isaacs, Northern Kentucky University – Salmon P. Chase College of Law, Missouri Law Review, Vol. 71, p. 391, 2006.