Re: public domain question

On 04/13/2000, Neil Wilkof <wilkofnj[_at_]inter.net.il> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Tyler T. Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On 04/10/2000, Neil Wilkof <wilkofnj[_at_]inter.net.il> wrote:
> > >
> > > "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.
>
> But it can't be as easy as how I phrase it. I can call a "cow"
> a "duck" if I want; it is still a member of the bovine family.

Of course it's not that easy; but as any good lawyer will tell you, getting the court to accept your characterization of the question is often the key to success. If I can convince a court that access controls and adhesion contracts are taking away "my" vested rights, I have a much better chance of winning than if I accept the characterization that the rights belong to no one.

> Surely there must be a more substantial way to determine the
> nature of this "public ownership?"

Right now, there are only two ways that I know of: legislation and court decisions. The legislators are in the pocket of big publishers with big money for campaign contributions. That leaves the courts; in which Eric Eldred's suit against term extension is the opening salvo.

Tyler T. Ochoa
Associate Professor
Whittier Law School
<tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> Received on Fri Apr 14 2000 - 17:56:22 GMT