Re: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8.

On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 08:26:41AM -0700, Cumbow, Robert wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2000, Christopher Gwyn <christopher[_at_]icopyright.com> wrote:
> >
> > "To promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing
> > for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights
> > to their respective writings and discoveries."
> > (United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8).
> >
> > Copyright law as enacted in the United States clearly allows an author
> > to sell the copyright to a work that he or she has created. I can't
> > think of any interpretation of Clause 8 that would not allow an author
> > to license a work in any way that he or she sees fit... But if the
> > author has the "exclusive rights to their... writings" -- does that
> > mean that the author can act to deprive his or her self of that
> > right -- i.e. sell the copyright.
> >
> > References to cases where an author was accused, and even convicted,
> > of infringement have been mentioned recently. I would assume that
> > if an author granted an exclusive license to "MegaCorp", and then
> > created a derivative work, that the derivative work could be an
> > infringement of MegaCorp's license. So a "self-infringement" case
> > might not quite address whether an author can sell a copyright --
> > particularly if it didn't get to the Supreme Court.
> >
> > Can anyone think of a Supreme Court case that speaks to whether an
> > author can actually _sell_ a copyright? (Or for that matter if the
> > Supreme Court has ever defined what "for limited times" means?)
>
>
> It doesn't take a Supreme Court opinion to determine whether an
> author can sell a copyright. All it takes is 17 USC 201(d)(1).

Contra a strict interpretation, Congress has repeatedly allowed preferential treatment to heir of authors to reinstate copyright at renewal (but not in the Bono Act). Surely the Constitutional mention of "authors" instead of "publishers" has some meaning, and the practice of allowing authors' heirs to regain exclusive rights but not allowing publishers' heirs might have application.

Surely Robert is correct, though. I'm a little confused as to the specifics, and it would take facts in a real case for anyone to be able to respond, and to determine if there is any real difference between merely "selling a copyright" and something like "transferring all exclusive rights perpetually". Received on Wed Aug 02 2000 - 20:51:24 GMT