View Full Version : are bibliographies included in copywrite?

7th April 2007, 03:48
simple question, but maybe difficult to answer.

When a published book is copywriten material...does this include the Bibliography and cited source references?

In other words, can I reference a book's bibliography listing in it's entirety without permission?

are bibliographies considered part of the 'intellectual property' ?

7th April 2007, 08:28
Bibliography is a list of relevant books, right?

If all it is is giving titles of books, then I don't see how it could logically be illegal in any way to recommend the same books listed somewhere else. But that's just my logic, the law might say different *straightens halo*

Jason Chambers
7th April 2007, 15:06
Ooookay. Why would you want to do that in the first place as opposed to making your OWN bibliography?

Joseph Svinth
7th April 2007, 17:53
Depends on how significant that bibliography is, and if it's annotated, etc.

If you took a list of three books (e.g., more than most martial art authors have read in their lives), then probably it's no problem. On the other hand, if you take somebody else's list of hundreds of books, then you're into problems, and if you include that somebody else's annotations, then you're definitely into copyright infringement.

10th April 2007, 23:58
Thanks for the answers. nothing facinating, just wondered about how that works.

2nd September 2007, 16:43
I am not sure what the original poster was looking for here, but I have wondered about something that might be a "similar" thought.

Suppose I am writing a book, but my research is really nothing other than a meta study (I think that's the term when rather than doing my own study I read materials from other studies and pull them together to form my own conclusion). In such a case, I am going to reference each of the materials I have read. I would think this would include not only the author's material, but some of the other material they reference. To be complete you would think that I would read not only the material from the author but all of the material they read, however, depending on the subject, that might be a virtual impossibility.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that I would reference all material that contributed to my study (that I've read directly), and none that I have not read (and/or used) directly - even thought the author of the book I referenced might have gotten that information somewhere else - because I have not read that directly from the other author. The material might be mis-quoted, mis-interpreted, or give (my) reader the wrong impression that I'd read that individual's material.

Now, if you've used all of the same material, it's not a copywrite issue (I'm not a lawyer), it's in fact correct to site the sources - as well as the additional source that got you started down that path.

Consider this, suppose you read a book and disagree with the author's thesis, and set about to disprove it. Would you not essentially read all of that material, quote it, and attempt to show where the author was mistaken? If you did so, you would have to site each of the sources; you works cited/bibliography would look very similar - would it not?

Now, that's just personal reasoning. I have an MBA, but no post-grad, so I stand ready to be corrected.

Joseph Svinth
2nd September 2007, 21:39
I believe the original poster was talking about analytical or annotated bibliographies (e.g., bibliographies that exist as separate entities in themselves) rather than enumerative bibliographies (e.g., "I have read these texts in the preparation of this document").

10th September 2007, 00:01
that's correct. was just curious about referencing an author's list of references. but Mr. Dostie also brings up a good question. As far as I know, if you read it, you can cite the work (with proper creditation: author+title).

but a particular collection of works cited, might be included as part of the copyright...hence my question.