Re: What is immoral?

On Wed, 22 Feb 1995 kcrews[_at_]velcome.iupui.edu wrote:
>
> 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."

Eisenhower, Nixon... Same thing. <g>

> 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.

After I made my post, I also went back and did a quick once-over of the AG Opinion (which is discussed in Nimmer, BTW). As Ken points out, the major basis for the opinion is that courts had been finding obscene works to not be copyrightable; hence, it seemed rather reasonable to opinine that the CO could decline to register these uncopyrightable works.

Since the trend since that time seems to be that obscene works are nonetheless "works" within the meaning of section 102, and hence copyrightable, I would now characterize the AG Opinion as unreliable.

--
Terry Carroll        |   "Clearly, this invention provides the world's
Santa Clara, CA      |   first weapons simulator for use by motorists."
carrollt[_at_]netcom.com  |     - U.S. Patent No. 5,314,371 (May 24, 1994)