Re: What is immoral?

In a message dated 21 Feb 1995, Terry Carroll noted:
>
> "I believe, though, that there was an opinion
> of the Attorney General saying that the Copyright Office could deny
> _registration_ to such a copyright. I think this was under Nixon."

Take a look at 41 Op. A.G. 395 (1958), by A.G. William P. Rogers (under Eisenhower), which reviews cases denying copyright protection for works that are "seditious, libellous, obscene or immoral." The opinion quotes a case that concluded that a copyrightable work must be "original, meritorious, and free from illegality or immorality." The opinion also makes note of the weak or absent reasoning in these cases.

The conclusion: The authority of the Copyright Office to deny registration is unclear, but the Office does have that power if it chooses to exercise it. The opinion also cautions that the Office would be getting into some formidable free speech issues if it flexed its muscles against "immorality." The Copyright Office is free to accept or not accept registrations. "This conclusion does not, of course, mean that the Register should not refer to the appropriate authorities material which comes to his attention in the course of his duties as containing evidence of a violation of law."

Thus the view from 1958.

Kenneth Crews
Indiana University
Indianapolis
<kcrews[_at_]velcome.iupui.edu> Received on Wed Feb 22 1995 - 17:17:12 GMT