Re: Dedication to the public domain

From: Nick Finke <finkend[_at_]Law.UC.Edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 09:13:57 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 16 Feb 1994 ROAKLEY[_at_]guvax.acc.georgetown.edu wrote:
>
> A couple of people wrote to suggest that there is a tension in my
> copyright release (see below) because it appears to place a condition
> on the use of the information.
>

[...]

> I had thought (and upon reflection, I still think) that my statement
> does not place a condition on the use of the work after it is in the
> public domain; rather, the statement makes a "request" that credit be
> given.
>

[...]

> Unless otherwise indicated, I make no claim of copyright in
> messages I write for transmission over the Internet. I
> hereby grant permission to all others to reproduce, retransmit
> or copy such messages, subject only to the request to retain
> the signature line or to give appropriate credit for the use
> of any such material.

In my opinion, under the language of the statute in Sec. 102, "Copyright protection subsists . . . in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression. . . .", the action Bob intends by his legend does constitute a license rather than a dedication to the public domain. Contrary to the state of affairs under the 1909 Act, the existence of copyright in a work no longer depends on any affirmative action by the author or anyone else. For this reason, I would interpret Bob's legend as giving a license to all who might care to use the message, subject to the condition that attribution be given as requested. While Bob's action may be essentially equivalent to dedicating an item to the public domain, under the statute as it now stands I do not believe that any item otherwise copyrightable (i.e., an "original work of authorship") can actually reach the public domain in any way other than the expiration of the copyright term (i.e., in this case Bob's life (may it be long) plus fifty years).

In the ordinary case I would bow to what is evidently Bob's understanding of the meaning of the statute. It is the use of the word "subsists" that leads me to the interpretation given.

Nick Finke
University of Cincinnati College of Law
Nick.Finke[_at_]law.uc.edu
(513) 556-0103 Fax (513) 556-6265 Received on Thu Feb 17 1994 - 14:32:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:11 GMT