Re: Anonymous poems

At 10:48 AM 9/25/02 -0500, Jane laPlante <laplante[_at_]warp6.cs.misu.nodak.edu> wrote:
>These poems have been posted on various educational sites on the
Internet,
>always with the attribution "author unknown." They appear to be
modern--
>say within the last 20 years, so they wouldn't have passed into the
public
>domain.

Tyler T. Ochoa
Professor and Co-Director
Center for Intellectual Property Law
Whittier Law School
3333 Harbor Blvd.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(714) 444-4141, ext. 243
(714) 444-1854 (fax)
tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu

>>> freya_anderson[_at_]eed.state.ak.us 09/26/02 11:16AM >>>
Wouldn't the poems then be considered published, even though not printed?
<<<<<

"Publication" is defined as the distribution of copies to the public. A public display does not itself qualify as a distribution. "Copies" are defined as material objects in which the work is fixed.

The problem is that the statute contemplates a book model of publication: the copies are printed [fixed] first, then distributed. With the Internet, things work the other way: the distribution of electronic bits occurs, then a "copy" is printed at the receiving end. It is simply unclear whether this qualifies as a "distribution" and hence a "publication" within the meaning of the statute.

However, most courts consider a "RAM" version of a work to be a "copy," and thus gloss over the conceptual difficulty. In the one case that I recall directly on point (sorry, I don't have the name or cite handy), the court concluded that posting on the Internet WAS a "publication." Received on Mon Sep 30 2002 - 18:48:57 GMT