Re: Right of attribution

>Micah Stolowitz writes, regarding failure to give attribution:
>
>The Lanham Act's section 43(a) may apply. It provides a civil cause
>of action, as you know, for any "false designation of origin." Seems
>like claiming authorship inaccurately could be a false designation of
>origin. The "in commerce" requirement is very loose under the Lanham
>Act -- being defined expressly as anything subject to regulation by
>Congress. Moreover, I believe that standing requirements are loose
>as well -- the purpose of the Act being to protect the general public
>from confusion as to source. Does the Copyright Act preempt such an
>unfair competition claim??

A good argument. I agree with all of your points, with the exception of a quibble on standing. The recent cases I have read deny 43(a) standing to consumers, apparently limiting the right to sue to producers whose goods are disparaged (presumably the copyright owner in this case).

I can't imagine 43(a) is "preempted" by the copyright act, particularly since it is federal law. Equivalent state-law rights might have a tougher time if applied in this context.

So let me re-ask my question, as suitably amended: given that you have a right of attribution in your works, would anyone suffer greatly from the abolition of copyright law *on the net only*? If there are problems (e.g. uploading and distributing print books), can we avoid them by defining "net-based materials" narrowly?

Mark Lemley
Assistant Professor
University of Texas School of Law
mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu Received on Wed Dec 07 1994 - 16:02:58 GMT