Christine, check out the following citation which go to the issues you have
raised under the 1909 Act:
Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Bldg. Commission of Chicago, 320 F. Supp. 1303 (N.D. Ill. 1970). Even though the author managed to obtain a federal registration, the registration was invalidated because the work had been injected into the public domain due to faulty/absent notice the first time the work was displayed. The case does an excellent job discussing prior law under the 1909 Act and principles, and giving a good definition of when display of the artwork constitues publication.
You may also want to look at a more contemporary interpretation of the 1909 Act. While not involving art work, the case of Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc., 194 F.3d 1211 (C.A. 11 Ga.,1999) explores many of the same issues of publication.
Sample qoutes from these cases:
"The test of general publication is whether the exhibition of the work to the public is under such conditions as to show dedication without reservation of rights or only the right to view and inspect it without more."
"There is no general publication where artwork is exhibited and there are bylaws against copies, or where it is tacitly understood that no copying shall take place, and the public are admitted ... on the implied understanding that no improper advantage will be taken of the privilege"
-Dave Green
Senior Corporate Counsel, Corbis
> Obviously the question 'Where they published or not?' is a key factor in
> analyzing this scenario. Does anyone know of case law that addresses
> 'publication' or 'publication history' as applied to works of art under
the
> 1909 and 1976 acts?
>
> Christine L. Sundt
> Visual Resources Collection
> Architecture & Allied Arts Library
> Lawrence Hall, Room 300
> 5249 University of Oregon
> Eugene, OR 97403-5249 - USA
>
> Phone: 541-346-2209
> FAX: 541-346-2205
>
> csundt[_at_]oregon.uoregon.edu
> http://libweb.uoregon.edu/aaa/vrc/VRCinfo.html
> Copyright & Art Issues: http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/cweb.htm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org [mailto:owner-cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org]On
> Behalf Of Stephen Fishman
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 7:24 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: RE: Artists, Museums & Copyright??
>
>
> --- Dave Green <dave[_at_]tech-esq.com> wrote:
>
> > Consequently, that left only five potential results:
> >
> >
> > (2) The work was a foreign work that fell into the
> > public domain due to
> > publication without proper notification, and may
> > have been restored
> > under the recent restoration provisions. This can be
> > confirmed online at
> > the LOC.
>
> You can't confirm this at the LOC. The Copyright
> Office has on file thousands of NIEs, but these
> represent only a tiny fraction of all the foreign
> works that were restored. What you have to do is find
> out the work's publication history. The work would
> have had to be first published outside the U.S. and
> must still be under copyright in the foreign country
> for it's U.S. copyright to be restored. I'm not sure
> whether the foreign publication must comply with the
> U.S. definition or that of the foreign country.
>
> > (4) The original and subsequent display/uses of the
> > work somehow did not
> > constitute general publication under the 1909 or
> > 1976 Acts, the work
> > remains unpublished, and will fall into the public
> > domain at the end of
> > this year unless published/registered, thereby
> > extending its copyright.
>
> Only unpublished works created by authors who died
> before 1932 will enter the public domain on 1/1/03.
> The author of the work in question died in 1985. If
> it's an unpublished work, it receives a copyright
> terms of life plus 70 years, so the copyright wouldn't
> expire until 2056.
>
> (5) The original display of the work somehow did not
> > constitute general
> > publication under the 1909 or 1976 Acts, the work
> > has since been
> > published under later Acts with proper registration
> > or notice (or no
> > notice if published after 1989), and remains under
> > copyright for the
> > current statutory term.
> >
> Registration is not required for copyright protection
> for published or unpublished work. It's needed only to
> file a copyright infringement lawsuit--and only if the
> copyright owner is American.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
>
>
Received on Mon Sep 30 2002 - 18:05:00 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:46 GMT