RE: donation to the public domain.

IAMAL, but I can certainly see cases where somebody would try to assert that a dedication to the public domain would be revocable. Picture if you will a famous artist who owed big money to the IRS and dedicated all of his art to the public domain either just before or just after a seizure action by IRS agents. (What exactly ARE the rules for seizure of intellectual property?) Interesting as it was, there's probably not much more light to be shed here on the revocability of contracts by minors here. In the general case, just as a promise to donate to charity IS an enforceable contract even in the absence of a consideration, I believe that dedication (perhaps donation is a better word) to the public domain is unrevokble.  

Of course broad license or notice of a lack of intent to assert ones rights is probably insufficient because ones heirs, assignees or creditors might have a different intentions.  

From: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property [mailto:CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 6:50 PM
To: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: [CNI-(C)] Software Licensing Agreement  

You give up your rights and can take them back? On what theory? If you have no rights, you have no rights. End of discussion.  

If you give a license, then you can revoke the license (subject to notice and equity limits and such, I presume), but if you relinquish your rights under what possible theory can you get them back?  

Dedication to the public domain, relinquishing rights is not the same as giving permission to use. The former is relinquishing rights, the latter is a license.  

I cannot reclaim a book that I have given to someone. I cannot reclaim money I give to a charity. Once I give up title, I give up title.  

Again, under what possible theory could one reclaim a copyright in a work in which one has renounced all copyright?  

Is there any instance of it being done? Of a court letting someone undo the dedication?  

I can imagine a situation of coercion or duress or fraud vitiating a dedication to the public. But that can't be the concern, is it?  

Mere "dedicator's remorse" can't really be the worrisome flaw, surely!  

Knowing whether something is merely not having rights asserted in it vs. it having been dedicated to the public domain is vexatious problem -- as are orphan works and such. But that cannot be the risk or flaw referred to, is it?  

If you do not want the copyright, just say so. The government is not forcing you to keep it or to assert it. Many things are freely available either as having been dedicated to the public domain or as having a broad license to use and disseminate. In both cases one needs to say something. One may not like that policy choice, as opposed to the necessity of affirmatively doing something to claim the right, but it is merely a policy choice, not a legal flaw or risk attendant to actually doing it.  

Steve      

On Feb 6, 2006, at 6:15 PM, McKie, John wrote:

IMHO, I think that the crux of the question is whether, once you have made

such a public disclaimer, whether or not you are legally prevented from

"taking it back". By analogy you can generally withdraw a mere permission

to use a work. Likewise, what legally prevents you from withdrawing the

permission inherent in announcing that the disclaimer is rescinded?

Presumably principles of equity apply where there is acquiescence, but my

guess is that this does not give the clear predictability that proponents of

public domain dedication in copyright disclaimers seek.    

John McKie

Trademark Partner

Ladas & Parry LLP

johnm[_at_]ladas.net <mailto:johnm[_at_]ladas.net>

P: 312.427.1300

F: 312.427-6663

www.ladasparry.com <http://www.ladasparry.com>  

-- 

Prof. Steven D. Jamar                                 vox:  202-806-8017

Howard University School of Law                       fax:  202-806-8428

2900 Van Ness Street NW
mailto:mailto:stevenjamar[_at_]gmail.com

Washington, DC  20008      http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar

 

Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime, 

Therefore, we are saved by hope. 

Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate
context of history; 

Therefore, we are saved by faith. 

Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone. 

Therefore, we are saved by love. 

No virtuous act is quite a virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or
foe as from our own; 

Therefore, we are saved by the final form of love which is forgiveness. 

 

Reinhold Neibuhr