Re: c.1995

From: Christopher Pesce <chrisp[_at_]continuum.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 94 10:56:00 PST

It is possible that the 1995 publication date is accurate according to the standards applicable in the publishing industry. In other words, it may be that the "official" publication date falls in 1995, but a few copies have been released "pre-publication," and those are the ones you are seeing.  There is a published, er, let's say, reported decision discussing "publication" for copyright purposes in the context of the publishing industry, but I'm sorry to say I can't remember the name or citation.

Christopher Pesce
chrisp[_at_]continuum.com

---

From: cni-copyright
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: c.1995
Date: Tuesday, November 01, 1994 11:25AM

> A friend who catalogs books has noticed that many of the books received
> during the last 6 months of the year have a copyright date of the
> following year. He also notes that this practice seems to be occuring
> more frequently now than in the past. Does anyone have an explanation
> for this? Is it legal? Does it have the effect of stretching the
> duration of copyright?

     I have noticed that on occassion, too. It must be the work of an attorney far more clever than me. It is not a correct notice, it seems to me, which "shall consist of the following three elements...

7 (1) the symbol ) (the letter C in a circle), or the word "Copyright", or the abbreviation "Copr."; and

7 (2) the year of first , publication of the work; in the case of compilations or , derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the, compilation or, derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a, pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying text matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any , useful articles; and

7 (3) the name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner... " [please excuse the hyperlink things]

     There are court decisions to the effect that a defective notice is NO notice. The statute is clear and speaks in mandatory terms. (Of course, notice is not mandatory to preserve copyrights, but correct notice helps to avoid a defense of innocent infringment).

     Maybe that clever attorney will enlighten me.  ---
Micah Stolowitz
Marger Johnson McCollom & Stolowitz, P.C. Patent, Trademark and Copyright Attorneys 650 American Bank Building, Suite 650
Portland, Oregon 97205

   Telephone: +1 503-222-3613
     FAX: +1 503-274-4622
   Internet: micah[_at_]techlaw.com Received on Tue Nov 01 1994 - 19:00:00 GMT