Law Students Line Up Behind 'Baby Blue' -- Will Harvard Law Review Sue?

from the law-student-on-law-student-legal-action dept

Thu, Feb 11th 2016 2:04pm — Mike Masnick

Back in 2014, we wrote about a crazy story, where the Harvard Law Review was claiming copyright over legal citation standards. It's true that the Harvard Law Review Association has published the famous "Bluebook" of legal citation standards for many years, but the idea that such citations are copyrightable is crazy. In response to this, law professor Chris Sprigman and open records guru Carl Malamud alerted the world of their intention to publish "Baby Blue" -- a competing legal citations publication. They noted that the 10th edition of the Bluebook, which as published in 1958, had clearly fallen into the public domain, and they were going to use that as the starting point for their competing product. Late in December, we pointed out that Harvard Law Review freaked out after its expensive Ropes & Gray lawyers saw a few tweets from Malamud suggesting Baby Blue was almost ready for publication. On Christmas Eve, a pricey lawyer sent off a nastygram, threatening a copyright infringement lawsuit if Baby Blue were published.

It took another month and a half or so, but Baby Blue is now available -- and it appears that law students are lining up behind it, rather than the Bluebook. A bunch of folks at Yale Law School and NYU Law School have come out in support of Baby Blue. It appears other law schools are jumping on board as well -- including Harvard Law School, Stanford and more.

Meanwhile, law professor David Post has provided a bit of free legal advice for the Harvard Law Review:

Here’s a bit of free legal advice: If you want to assert copyright protection over something, don’t call it “A Uniform System of Citation” — because systems are, by definition, unprotected by copyright. Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act couldn’t be clearer:

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, [or] method of operation, … regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

And now... everyone gets to wait and see what the Harvard Law Review Association decides to do.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: baby blue, bluebook, carl malamud, chris sprigman, citations, copyright, legal citations, public domain
Companies: harvard, harvard law review, harvard law review association, nyu, stanford, yale

16 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2016 @ 2:15pm

That "by definition" doesn't apply anymore
Methods of an API aren't able to be copyrighted "by definition" either but that didn't seem to matter to SCOTUS so I would say that argument doesn't work anymore, unfortunately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2016 @ 2:32pm

We have a rogue court, they will answer for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2016 @ 2:34pm

The Law?
Psh... what is this "law" you speak of? The "law" has not been enforced in the course or by police for a long time. The only thing being done is by judicial fiat.

Of all the people walking around judges probably know the law the least despite needing to know it the most.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DavidMxx (profile), 11 Feb 2016 @ 3:07pm

Remind me not to hire any lawyers that work for the Harvard Law Review if I need expert copyright law representation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sehlat (profile), 11 Feb 2016 @ 4:11pm

Don’t call it “A Uniform System of Citation”
You would think lawyers for a law review would at least check the law before sending anything out.

Somewhere the Irony Fairy is laughing her head off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2016 @ 4:51pm
  
  Re: Don’t call it “A Uniform System of Citation”
  Remember when President Obama had to be sworn in a second time for his first term? "The Flub Heard Round the World?" Yeah, both men - the one taking the oath of office and the one administering it - were former honchos at the Harvard Law Review.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 15 Feb 2016 @ 9:11am
  
  Re: Don’t call it “A Uniform System of Citation”
  You would think lawyers for a law review would at least check the law before sending anything out.
  
  I'm guessing there's enough money at stake to make it worth considering filing a lawsuit even if they know it's flimsy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
LauraTee (profile), 11 Feb 2016 @ 5:20pm

It's like watching a firehouse burn down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- LAquaker, 12 Feb 2016 @ 1:16am
  
  Re: Yep
  On May 25, 1956, the fire station at Cook and McClelland burned down with a total loss. Three engines were lost as well as a personal automobile and a motorcycle.
  
  In October of 1957, Santa Maria’s new station No. 1 at Cook and McClelland was completed and occupied.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2016 @ 5:23pm

Definitions
Make like the NSA and claim a new definition of "system". Or claim a trademark on "system". Possibilities are endless!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2016 @ 5:34pm

The fact that the original has "system" in the title doesn't mean that it doesn't contain protectable elements. Its simply facile to suggest otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2016 @ 8:01pm
  
  Re:
  You can't read, can you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 11 Feb 2016 @ 8:50pm

" Baby Blue is now available -- and it appears that law students are lining up behind it, rather than the Bluebook"

Looks like Bluebook is getting Blueballs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 11 Feb 2016 @ 10:52pm

And if they /do/ sue...
"Now students, your next assignment will be to draft a counter-notice to the legal filing against Baby Blue, pointing out the various flaws within it. Please be as detailed as possible, as your filings will be examined by practicing lawyers, with your various arguments used to craft the 'official' counter-notice by the lawyers working on the case."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2016 @ 5:41am

So, by being greedy the Harvard Law Review could lose their entire golden goose to a competitor spawned just from their greed.

How ironic.

It's almost like they didn't need the copyright in the first place to dominate the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2016 @ 7:22am

Wait.... So Harvard's own law school is jumping on the Baby Blue bandwagon? Ya'd think that would make the Harvard Law Review re-think their position...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]