copyrights and copywrongs

I recently picked up a local history book from the library that raises a few interesting questions with regards to history and the copyright. This book features "copies" of old advertisements and business directory listings. There is no accompanying text. There is no interpretation or elaboration. These are straight-up photocopies. The publishing and copyright page at the beginning of the book is very clear that the book is copyrighted and that unauthorized reproduction isn't allowed. However, one could argue that this book itself is copying others' work and presenting it as if it were their own, and therefore, what kind of copyright could they possibly have on it?

Unless the author managed to get legal permission to reproduce every single ad and every single business directory listing (the book spans several decades starting in the late 19th century, so this is extremely unlikely), how can the author claim to own copyright over the included content? Some of the items included probably fall into the "expired" category due to their age (their original owners are probably "expired" as well), but what gives the current author the permission to assume copyright over them? And has the author checked with successors and heirs for copyright claims?

It is situations like this that show how ridiculous the world of copyrights can be, and the definition of content "ownership" apparently just got a little bit more vague. Then again, copyrights are like municipal codes, and only stand ground until they are argued in a court of law. The moral of the story is this: You can claim a copyright over anything. You can even print that copyright notice in a published book. Whether you actually obtained those ownership rights and/or submitted them via official U.S. copyright channels is irrelevant. You can even threaten others not to "copy" your "copied" material.

Best of all, it all stands as "fact" and "truth" just because you say so. At least, until someone else challenges you on it...