Re: What is immoral?

Terry Carrol writes:
>
>For copyright, you obtain the copyright as soon as the work is fixed in
>a tangible medium of expression, even if it is obscene. I'm not aware
>of any recent (say, post-1978) cases that deny copyright due to content.
>I think that there are some older ones that do. A more recent case
>holding the opposite is Mitchell Bros. v. Cinema Adult Theatre, 604
>F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1979). 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.

This may be the case in the US but elsewhere internationally there may be some problems.

_Rodney Keft & Kemalda Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police_ (1985) AIPC 90-236 ( an English case) suggests that the principle still operates but questions whether it has much scope in the current permissive culture. I would suggest that child pornography would be the most likely category of material to attract its operation.

The Salman Rushdie case about the Satanic Verses suggests that blasphemy is also still a basis for refusing copyright protection but only blasphemy against the Christian religion.

This case law would be followed in Australia and Canada as well as in the UK (although I suspect blasphemy may be different in Australia because of constitutional problems).

Anybody know how Berne deals with obscenity and blasphemy?

The international perspective on trademark, patent and registered designs suggests similar problems although application will probably vary from country to country.

Tim Arnold-Moore      | CITRI, RMIT         | Uni. of Melbourne Law School
tja[_at_]citri.edu.au      | 723 Swanston St     | ----------------------------
Phone: +61 3 282 2487 | Carlton 3053        |       simul iustus
Fax:   +61 3 282 2490 | Victoria, Australia |        et peccator