Re: Re: Copyright in the Hollywood Sign

There was caselaw to the contrary in the First Circuit, I believe, but it was a minority position.

Vance

On 6/16/05, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Agenbroad, James (Civ,ARL/CISD) wrote:
>
> > I thought that there was some caselaw that public-display (or at least
> > public offering for sale) counted as "publication" under the 1909 act.
>
> I'm pretty sure that under the 1909 Act, mere display was not a
> publication, either, and that the 1976 definition was merely a
> codification of that doctrine. The heart of publication has for a long
> time been distribution.
>
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <
> https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
>

-- 
Vance R. Koven
Boston, MA USA
vrkoven[_at_]world.std.com