Re: public domain question

On 04/10/2000, Neil Wilkof <wilkofnj[_at_]inter.net.il> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2000, Tyler T. Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On 03/23/2000, Robert A. Baron <rabaron[_at_]pipeline.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > When you think of the Public Domain, do you think of a body of
> > > works owned in common by everybody or do you think of a body of
> > > works owned by nobody?
> >
> > Allow me to add another citation to bolster my view that public domain
> > should mean common ownership: In Mayer v. Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd.,
> > 601 F. Supp. 1523 (1985), the work fell into the public domain because
> > of publication without copyright notice (back when notice was still
> > required). The court said:
> >
> > It is elementary that once copyrightable material is published
> > without the author's first securing federal copyright protection,
> > the author loses his property interest in the material. The
> > material becomes public property. ... In this case, Mayer no
> > longer owned her design. The public did.
>
> "The public did". Which means what, exactly?

To me, it means that the public (i.e., any member of the public) can reproduce the design and sell the resulting copies; can adapt the design for other purposes; and can publicly display it, without permission from or royalties paid to anyone else.

The same may be true if "no one" owns it; but by phrasing public ownership in the affirmative, I hope to establish that the public has rights that cannot be divested by other means, such as access controls and adhesion contracts.

Tyler T. Ochoa
Associate Professor
Whittier Law School
<tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> Received on Wed Apr 12 2000 - 22:08:20 GMT