RE: copyright of briefs

On 10/14/96, Robert Cumbow <CUMBR[_at_]perkinscoie.com> said:
>
> Any work of original authorship is protected by copyright unless it
> consists entirely of uncopyrightable matter. The fact that someone's
> work has become part of a public record does not invalidate the author's
> copyright and right to exercise control over subsequent uses. See,
> e.g., Marvin Worth Prods. v. Superior Films Corp., 319 F. Supp. 1269
> (SDNY 1970) and Douglas Intl Corp. v. Baker, 335 F. Supp. 282 (SDNY
> 1971) [Lenny Bruce's monologues could not be subsequently used in films
> or plays about him, merely because they had become part of public court
> records].

Let us ask a slightly different question.

Does Congress have the power to grant copyright in legal briefs?

Or more generally, Does Congress have the pwoer to grant copyright when it is in derogation of the progress of knowledge?

Copyright, of course, is a restriction on freedom of speech. Presumably, then, the power ought be narrowly construed. Does the statement of purpose in the Consttitution impose any limits on copyright?

Regards,

John Lederer
<johnl[_at_]ibm.net>

Oregon, Wisconsin
(Leaves are changing and dropping. Some think this beautiful. We realists know what this portends) Received on Wed Oct 16 1996 - 12:06:45 GMT