Re: linking and copyright

On 03/24/2000, Jessica Litman <litman[_at_]mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/23/2000, Tyler Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, there were provisions in the 1909 Act for registering
> > unpublished works. Even after the omission of notice on the Oscar
> > was corrected, it was registered as an unpublished work, and it
> > continued to be distributed as a limited publication. A limited
> > publication simply doesn't count as "published" for purposes of
> > copyright law.
>
> That was the law under the 1909 Act, but I don't think it's true
> anymore. Publication is defined in section 101 as "distribution of
> copies ... to the public by sale ... or by rental lease or lending."
> Does the requirement that copies be distributed "to the public"
> incorporate something from the old "limited publication doctrine"?
> Well, maybe, but not much. The second clause of the definition, "the
> offering to distribute copies ... to a group of persons for purposes
> of further distribution, public performance, or public display,
> constitutes publication" includes a number of acts that would not
> have qualified as general publication under the 1909 Act, and
> certainly includes what the Academy did with the Oscar statuettes.

Jessica's point is well-taken: the 1976 Act contains a definition of "publication" that is in some respects broader than the case law definition under the 1909 Act. But I suspect courts will continue to rely on the "general" vs. "limited" publication distinction except where doing so would clearly be inconsistent with the new definition. Specifically, I am confident that registration and deposit of an otherwise unpublished work will not be held to constitute a "publication" within the meaning of the 1976 Act.

Tyler T. Ochoa
Associate Professor
Whittier Law School
<tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> Received on Fri Mar 24 2000 - 19:15:09 GMT