At 01:54 PM 12/14/2001 -0800, Tyler Ochoa wrote:
Under U.S. law, the
"author" of the videotape owns the copyright. This would
be the person who shot the video, unless it is a work made for
hire.
I am confused by this response. A common assumption in oral history
work is that when an interview is recorded, separate copyrights in the
spoken words and in the recording are created. Oral historians
normally cite Suid v. Newsweek and its conclusion that participants in
interviews own the copyright in their remarks. Shouldn't UBL
(as Donald Rumsfeld likes to refer to him) have a copyright interest in
his own remarks?
It would seem to me that the key question would be whether the videotape
was authorized. If it was an authorized fixation (as it apparently
was), then at least under US law both the person who shot the video, UBL,
and the unidentified third party in the interview would each own the
copyright in their respective contributions to the collective
work. If the fixation is not authorized, than there would be
no federal copyright in the interview (though I believe there might be a
common law copyright).
Are most oral historian interviewers misunderstanding US
law?
Peter B. Hirtle
pbh6@cornell.edu
Received on Mon Dec 17 2001 - 20:43:39 GMT