Talk:Melville Nimmer

Untitled

Calling Nimmer on Copyright "the definitive work" on US copyright law may be the consensus view, but it is probably not neutral and probably not true. This fine treatise is the most-referred to resource in its field, and is held in high regard by almost everyone. Yet assuming that there can be a definitive work on copyright, and assuming that Nimmer has filled this role, is overreaching. See Ann Bartow, The Hegemony of the Copyright Treatise, 73 Cinn. L. Rev. 1-64 (2004). She spells out in painstaking detail how Nimmer's personal points of view are often mistaken, due to his authoritative status, as SETTLED LAW, when they are not. At the least, Bartow writes, the matter is "more nuanced and complicated than [Nimmer makes] them to appear." page 13.

Moabalan (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The Georgetown U. law library thinks it is. I've added the reference. RossPatterson (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Georgetown's own words, Nimmer is the "leading secondary source." This is a country mile from "definitive." By the way, until recently Nimmer's was the only long treatise on copyright law in the US. Now William Patry has issued one. No longer do we have just one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.35.137 (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone comment on Melville and David's relationship. As a law student studying copyright law, this took me a while to understand. 208.90.214.239 (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know them, but I understood Melville the dad started the Nimmer treatise in the 60s and then talked son David, who was in other areas of law, to change his practice and take over the copyright work about 20-25 years ago. David agreed and became for years the one leading source of copyright law interpretation, presumably still is. I can tell this without meeting any of them: they're both workaholics. In his spare time David writes 80 or 200 page law review articles. He's Of Counsel with Irell and Manella in Los Angeles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.38.209 (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ross Patterson above says Georgetown U Library thinks Nimmer on C. is the "definitive text" on the subject, and he placed a reference. I have removed the adjective definitive with "leading secondary source" which is the phraseology in his footnote. I know personally about half of the most active copyright lawyers in the US, and I think 97% of them would agree that Nimmer is the leading secondary source. His only rival is a four-volume treatise that is far less known and regarded than Nimmer's. But "definitive" carries a note of finality that is not objective, not agreed upon, and that the Ann Bartow piece noted above has examined in more detail than any other source I've seen. Mr Patterson, all you have verified with your Georgetown note is that some individual librarian or attorney there describes Nimmer as the leading secondary source. Even if they called him the definitive source, that would be one informed opinion. My own experience is that Nimmer indeed has a point of view and sometimes writes as if that point of view is established law, when it is not. I refer to Nimmer regularly. Thank you all for your comments. I do think you need better documentation by a mile to call Nimmer definitive in an encyclopedia article.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melville Nimmer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725074924/http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Cohen_v_CA to http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Cohen_v_CA

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)