RE: Re: Fixation

IANL, but I would interpret this differently. IMHO I don't see authorization affecting the fixation of the underlying work. Once an improvisational work is fixed by whatever or whomever it is protected. Said recording is not itself an infringement,authorized or not, since the improvisational work of authorship was not previously fixed. However, copying, publicly performing, or creating a derivative work (such as a transcription) of/from the recording would be an infringement of the the underlying work SINCE IT HAS NOW BEEN FIXED. It is not a matter of interest whether the recording was authorized by the performer do be done, it is what the performer now authorizes to be done with the recording, since he NOW has a claim of copyright in the original performance.

All the ususal disclaimers apply: this is not legal advice, just my opinion IANL YMMV etc.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Noble [mailto:jnoble[_at_]dgsys.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 6:10 PM To: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: The Rights of Major League Baseball

The recording of an improvised speech, if it is recorded by or under the authority of the author, is a "work of authorship" protected by copyright. The same improvised speech, recorded without the authority of the author, is not a work protected by copyright because it was not recorded by or under the authority of the author. But because it is independently created, i.e. without copying the authorized recording, it does not infringe the protected (authorized) recording. Received on Fri Dec 12 2003 - 20:56:59 GMT