One point of confusion? -- Isn't it the copyright owner (read "publisher") who actually gets these rights? Once copyright is assigned to the publisher, it appears to me that the author hasn't much to hold onto, except the possibility that a new spark of creativity will occur and lead to another work that can be passed onto a publisher who then owns the rights... Is this the original chicken and egg issue?
Christine Sundt
<csundt[_at_]oregon.uoregon.edu>
On Sat, 2 Mar 1996, J. Noble wrote:
>
> The market for permission fees exists because sec. 106 gives to authors
> the exclusive right to copy, distribute and make derivatives from their
> works. This is a sort of chicken and egg issue: which came first, the
> lawyers or the law?
>
> J. Noble
> <jnoble[_at_]dgs.dgsys.com>
Received on Tue Mar 05 1996 - 00:39:23 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:19 GMT