> Doesn't that mean then, that a PUBLIC law library copy is not in the
> existing in-house collection of the attorney???
Touche. The statement from Matthew Bender is clearly aimed at private law
libraries, and would not appear to apply in the case of a public law
library.
However, if Matthew Bender's intent is limit copying to attorneys using
privately owned copies, they are going against both the spirit and the
letter of section 108 of the Copyright Law, which specifically says making
copies in public libraries is not a copyright violation.
Going back to your original question, I think when you take the decision in
Bond vs. Blum I mentioned earlier (copyright materials may be entered as
evidence in a case), and combine it with section 108 (making copies of works
in public libraries is not a copyright infringement), it is absolutely ok to
include copies of copyrighted works in court documents.
Erik Y. Adams
Electronic Resources Librarian
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
eadams@sheppardmullin.com
(213)617-5429 / Fax: (213)620-1780
______________________________________________________________________________
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Please visit our website at www.sheppardmullin.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:45:29 PST