RE: Artists, Museums & Copyright??

At 11:50 PM 9/26/02 -0700, Terry Carroll wrote:
> > Hmmm. I don't see how publication of a reproduction would act as
> > publication of the original, or am I missing something?
>
>"Reproductions" and "originals" aren't published. "Works" are published.

Point taken, and correct as far as it goes, but is publication of an obvious derivative the same as publication of "the work"? Compare the definition of "created" in the 1976 Act, where it says that when a work is created in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.

Moreover, doesn't the original medium matter? We normally understand a novel, for example, to consist of the words irrespective of whether they show up on paper or in pixels, handwritten, typed, or typeset, but when they are spoken, we call that a performance and it doesn't count as "publication" (or does it?--the MLK case seems to say it didn't even under the old act). If I write a symphony and publish only a piano reduction of it, I don't believe I've published the orchestrated original. A painting in oil on canvas is sui generis, which is why the judge-made doctrines developed under the 1909 Act as to when display constituted publication of the original. Under the 1976 Act, unless I'm missing something (always a possibility, closing in on probability), the original can now never be published unless the "original" is a print, or a cast sculpture, or something else whose identical reproduction is inherent in the initial production process. The only issue served by the definition of publication with respect to one-of-a-kind works, then, is who has the right to make derivatives in replicable media and publish *them*.

Vance R. Koven, Senior Attorney
Comverse, Inc.
100 Quannapowitt Parkway
Wakefield, MA 01880 USA
+1 781-224-8523 (vox humana)
+1 781-224-8144 (fax mechanica) Received on Mon Sep 30 2002 - 12:56:57 GMT