Re: Tasini

At 8:48 AM -0500 6/26/01, Joseph P. Bauer wrote:
>One passage in Justice Stevens dissent intrigued me. He wrote that "No one
>doubts that The New York Times has the right to reprint its issues in
>Braille, in a foreign language or in microform...." Braille or microform
>are easy; they're just a different medium for the same "work." But the
>"foreign language" is quite different; here it's a transformation. In fact,
>sec 101 identifies a "translation" as the first example of a derivative
>work. As we all know, you can't make a derivative work without the
>permission of the owner of the underlying work (if it's still subject to
>copyright). So, I see the possibilities for mischief arising from this
>statement.

You must be right that foreign language translations are outside the scope of a 201(c) revisions. Stevens might actually believe it, but I'm surprised Breyer didn't catch it (actually I'm surprised to find Breyer on the dissent at all). This is what happens when they start churning out opinions at the end of the term. How often does it happen that an opinion is substantively revised, sua sponte, after it is handed down?

I think the potential for mischief is limited by the fact that it's dicta in a dissenting opinion, and "no one doubts..." can hardly be taken as the view of anyone but Stevens and Breyer even as dicta. Also, it seems unlikely to arise as a practical matter. The database issue is a relic of license agreements that did not address an unforeseen distribution, but publishers and freelancers have been providing (or not) for foreign language translations for a long-time -- U.S. and/or world-wide rights to English and/or foreign language translations.

John Noble Received on Wed Jun 27 2001 - 22:43:26 GMT